Shamima Begum loses citizenship removal appeal bid [Post Updated #689]

[the Great Khan]

You are not making sense here. You asked me how she is different from regular criminals and I gave you a reply.

Anyway, as I said before, she doesn’t recognise UK law; her allegiance is somewhere else!

No you dont get it. Its very simple. She was a minor when she committed a crime. Her recognising of the law is irrelevant. She should be tried like any other citizen. End of. Otherwise the law becomes a joke.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

non white immigrants (whether first, second or nth generation) should act as ambassadors of their ethnicity and put up their best behaviour so that they don't bring dishonour and shame to the country of their origin.

I disagree, their countries of origin are not held in high regard in the first place, so non-white immigrants are not in fact bringing shame, they are upholding their low reputation at the level expected by the judicious indigenous population.

 

[Robert]

And incarceration is humane, or capital punishment is?

Not the job of the state to take care of the sensibilities of its woke citizens. The state is inhuman so that the citizens don't have to be. The state murders those who deserve it so that it citizens sleep well with their conscience.

Rehabilitation of offenders involves humane prison sentences in many cases.

We don’t have capital punishment.

 

[Firebat]

Shamima Begum: Bid to return in citizenship fight goes to Supreme Court

The case of Syrian runaway Shamima Begum, who is fighting to return to the UK, will go to the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal decided that the case raised a point of law of public importance that only the Supreme Court can resolve.

Earlier this month, three Court of Appeal judges ruled Ms Begum should be allowed back to London to fight for the return of her citizenship.

The government said that decision was deeply flawed.

Ms Begum, now 20, was one of three schoolgirls who left London to join the Islamic State group in Syria in 2015.

After she was found in a refugee camp in 2019, her British citizenship was revoked by former Home Secretary Sajid Javid on security grounds.

Separately, the court has revealed that the Sun newspaper will be referred to the Attorney General after it obtained a copy of the Court of Appeal's draft judgement - or its "essential contents" - in advance of it being handed down on 16 July.

It had been given to the parties involved on 9 July.

Lady Justice King, the head of the panel of three judges, said they were referring the newspaper to the Attorney General because of a potential contempt of court in publishing a story about the judgement before it was announced in court.

The judge also granted Ms Begum's lawyers permission to challenge a decision that the absence of a fair and effective appeal over the citizenship decision did not necessarily mean it should be restored - subject to the Supreme Court accepting that part of the case.

Sir James Eadie, representing the Home Office, said earlier there was a "big issue at stake" in the case, to decide what should happen when someone cannot have a fair appeal over being stripped of their citizenship as a "result of going abroad and aligning with terrorist groups".

He said it was "an issue of real pressing public importance" which was "perhaps the central democratic issue of our times".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53607595

 

[MenInG]

Shamima Begum's return to the UK has been put on hold after the government was given permission to take the case to the Supreme Court.

Begum, now 20, was one of three east London schoolgirls who travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State (IS) terror group in 2015.

She lived under IS rule for more than three years before she was found, nine months pregnant, in a Syrian refugee camp in February last year.

Then-home secretary Sajid Javid revoked her British citizenship on national security grounds later that month.

Earlier this month, Court of Appeal judges ruled that Ms Begum should be allowed to return to the UK to challenge the decision, saying it was "the only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal".

The judges found that "the national security concerns about her could be addressed and managed if she returns to the United Kingdom".

But at a remote hearing on Friday, the government argued that the Court of Appeal wrongly concluded Ms Begum should be granted leave to enter the UK.

Lawyers for the Home Office said there were "significant national security concerns" about Ms Begum's potential return.

Sir James Eadie QC said: "The public will be less well protected if Ms Begum returns than it would be if she does not return."

He argued that the case concerned "an issue of real pressing public importance", namely what the courts should do when someone "cannot have a fair and effective hearing in a deprivation appeal, but they cannot do so because... of going abroad and aligning with terrorist groups".

Lady Justice King said the case raised "points of law of general public importance" which should be considered by the UK's highest court.

She said that "clearly there must be a stay" on Ms Begum's potential return to the UK "until further order by the Supreme Court".

The judge also granted permission for Ms Begum's lawyers to challenge the decision that the absence of a fair and effective appeal did not mean her British citizenship should be restored, subject to the Supreme Court accepting that part of the case.
Ms Begum was one of three schoolgirls from Bethnal Green Academy who left their homes and families to join IS in February 2015.

In an interview with Sky News last year, she claimed she was "just a housewife" during her four years in IS' self-declared caliphate, where she married a young Dutch fighter called Yago Riedijk three weeks after arriving.

She said she left Raqqa in January 2017 with her husband but her children, a one-year-old girl and a three-month-old boy, had both since died.

Her third child, called Jarrah, died shortly after he was born last year.

Ms Begum travelled to Syria to join IS with fellow Bethnal Green Academy pupils Kadiza Sultana - who is believed to have died - and Amira Abase, whose fate remains unknown.


https://news.sky.com/story/shamima-...n-hold-as-case-sent-to-supreme-court-12039992

 

[MenInG]

The Supreme Court will consider whether Shamima Begum should be allowed to return to the UK to challenge the deprivation of her British citizenship.

The hearing, which will be held remotely, is taking place over two days starting today.

Ms Begum, now 21, was one of three east London schoolgirls who travelled to Syria to join Islamic State in February 2015.

After the disintegration of the terror group, the former Bethnal Green Academy pupil was found in a northern Syrian refugee camp in February last year, with other former IS brides and their children.

She was nine months pregnant with her third child but all three children have died.

In February, then home secretary Sajid Javid revoked her British citizenship - a decision which would only be lawful if it did not leave Ms Begum stateless.

At the time, sources suggested the teenager, whose parents are from Bangladesh, may also have Bangladeshi citizenship.

But Bangladesh's minister of state for foreign affairs Shahriar Alam claimed those reports were false and warned that Ms Begum would not be allowed into his country.

In July, the Court of Appeal ruled that "the only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal".

Ms Begum travelled to Syria with Kadiza Sultana and Amira Abase, then 16 and 15 respectively, all three flying to Istanbul before making their way to the Syrian city of Raqqa.

She claims she married a Dutch convert just days after arriving in Raqqa, with her school friends reportedly doing the same.

Kadiza Sultana is believed to have died since then and the fate of Amira Abase remains unknown.

On Monday, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission will also hear the cases of two other women, who have not been identified.

The women have British-Bangladeshi citizenship but have had their British citizenship revoke on the grounds of national security after allegedly travelling to Syria to join IS.

The tribunal will also hear an appeal from a man whose British citizenship was revoked this year after he also allegedly travelled to Syria to join the terrorist group.

All three say they were left stateless by the the decision to revoke their British citizenship, something denied by the Home Office.

https://news.sky.com/story/shamima-...challenge-deprivation-of-citizenship-12139872

 

[Saj]

Shamima Begum fails to restore her British citizenship

Shamima Begum, who fled Britain as a schoolgirl to join Islamic State in Syria, has failed to restore her British citizenship after the supreme court ruled on Friday that she had lost her case.

The judgment from the UK’s highest court is a critical – and controversial – test case of the UK’s policy to strip the citizenship of Britons who went to join Isis and are being detained by Syrian Kurdish groups without trial.

Begum was 15 when she fled east London with two other school friends to join Isis in Syria six years ago. Her UK nationality was removed in 2019, shortly after she had been found by a journalist in a prison camp.

Although born and raised in the UK, Begum’s British citizenship was removed by the then home secretary Sajid Javid, who argued she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, the birth country of her parents.

Begum, now 21, fought that decision and wants to be allowed to return to the UK to pursue her legal challenge in person in a test case about the status of Britons who joined Isis and also had their citizenship revoked.

British law allows the home secretary to remove a person’s British citizenship if doing so would be “conducive to the public good”. However, it is illegal to revoke their nationality if doing so would leave them stateless.

A two-day hearing in the case in November heard that Begum was still considered by MI5 as a national security risk because although she had travelled out as a minor, she had “aligned” with the terror group.

Lord Pannick QC, representing Begum, said was unable to put her side of the case properly from al-Roj detention camp where she is held. He told the court she would be at risk of physical harm if she spoke by mobile phone to her British lawyers.

Pannick told the court that the Kurdish authorities in al-Roj camp “do not permit detainees to use their phones”. Those caught, he added, were “placed in isolation, separated from their children and beaten”.

Last July, the court of appeal unexpectedly ruled that Begum, who is being held by the Syrian Kurds, could return home to challenge the British government.

Friday’s ruling followed a Home Office decision to appeal against that decision – although supreme court judges were also considering her citizenship case if they decided not to allow her to return to the UK.

As a teenager, Begum was married to an Isis fighter while she was embroiled in the Syrian conflict and had three children, all of whom have since died. As Isis was defeated, she was captured by the Syrian Kurds in 2019 and has been in their detention ever since at camps whose condition has been described as “dire”.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/cour...zenship-court-rules/ar-BB1e2pSY?ocid=msedgntp

 

[Robert]

This is out of order. She was born in UK and if there is evidence of a crime we should try her and rehabilitate her.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Good decision. Anyone who joins a terrorist organisation/foreign army should have their citizenship removed.

We cannot risk people who have been indoctrinated being back on our streets. Infact, I would include people who join the IDF in this list aswell.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

This is out of order. She was born in UK and if there is evidence of a crime we should try her and rehabilitate her.

We should let the Iraqis/Syrians try her.

 

[shaz619]

We should let the Iraqis/Syrians try her.

Bro if you are supporting that view now, don’t worry you will get deported soon to

 

[shaz619]

This is out of order. She was born in UK and if there is evidence of a crime we should try her and rehabilitate her.

Our problem and our failure to, nonsense this decision

 

[Local.Dada]

This is out of order. She was born in UK and if there is evidence of a crime we should try her and rehabilitate her.

She is a security threat. What are the odds she isn’t a covert operative? 1%, 5%,90% doesn’t matter.

It sets a good precedent. You go against the country and its values once, that’s it. Too bad.

Why isn’t she seeking asylum elsewhere?

Doesn’t deserve sympathy.

This age card people play is why terrorists target kids to be perfect soldiers. See it in Africa, happened with LTTE.

Good call I would say. People needs such examples to fall in line.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Bro if you are supporting that view now, don’t worry you will get deported soon to

I don't have any plans to join a terrorist group mater so I'm all good

 

[Robert]

We should let the Iraqis/Syrians try her.

Which of them? On what charge?

 

[Robert]

She is a security threat. What are the odds she isn’t a covert operative? 1%, 5%,90% doesn’t matter.

It sets a good precedent. You go against the country and its values once, that’s it. Too bad.

It sets a terrible precedent. Her most fundamental rights have been taken away. What crime has she committed?

 

[Local.Dada]

It sets a terrible precedent. Her most fundamental rights have been taken away. What crime has she committed?

Would you encourage anyone you know or care about to take the path she took?

Why is the answer no?

That should explain it.

 

[Local.Dada]

Crude example: if You cheat on your spouse, you are the dbag, if the spouse accepts you back despite that ok you get a 2nd chance even though you are still a dbag

If you cheat on your spouse with someone who is trying to kill and destroy them, your status as a dbag doesn’t change but the spouse is equally dumb and accountable.

That should summarize this situation.

 

[the Great Khan]

She is a security threat. What are the odds she isn’t a covert operative? 1%, 5%,90% doesn’t matter.

It sets a good precedent. You go against the country and its values once, that’s it. Too bad.

Why isn’t she seeking asylum elsewhere?

Doesn’t deserve sympathy.

This age card people play is why terrorists target kids to be perfect soldiers. See it in Africa, happened with LTTE.

Good call I would say. People needs such examples to fall in line.

there are many other security threats within the UK who have not had their citizenship taken away including returning male fighters and others who fought for terror groups. What about Northern Irish terrorists who possesed british passports?

It seems this has been done to send a message.

 

[RajBan]

She does have a Bangladesh passport, so she can go and stay in a safe environment if she wants. She need not go to UK again necessarily.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Which of them? On what charge?

Wherever she committed/incited/was an to accessory acts of terrorism

 

[CricketCartoons]

She does have a Bangladesh passport, so she can go and stay in a safe environment if she wants. She need not go to UK again necessarily.

Bangladesh said they will hang her if she came to Bangladesh. She is UK's headache, and they are doing this because of the obvious thing. To look tough on terror when it is someone expendable as a brown ethnic minority.

 

[mazkhan]

This is a horrible precedent being set

Shamima begum is a British national she was born in this country and grew up here.

She was a minor at 15 and was groomed in a vulnerable state, just like the white girls who were groomed by grooming gangs and known as angels whilst this girl is somehow a devil. Same thing can be said about those girls they knew about drugs pimps and sex so they were asking for it. So how come its one rule for white girls and another rule for a 15 yr old muslim girl?

Shamima begum mother died of cancer whilst she was 14 and 15 and then subsequently she went to Syria after her father married again Its pretty obvious there was some psychological problem here from her mothers death here

I'm not excusing what she did she should be tried in the UK and if found guilty locked away.

But the fact is by law shamima was a child.
She was groomed manipulated and questions need to be asked how 3 schoolgirls managed to fly to Turkey without a passport and no one picked up anything .

On top of that she has lost 3 children the last one is totally fault of sajid javid who would not rescue the baby which later died in the camp.

On human rights grounds and basic humanity what this British goverment has done is absolutely disgusting to its own citizen.

A responsible state is supposed to bring its own criminal back and try them in the court of law.

 

[Nadeemp]

She was born in UK. She should be UK problem. However someone e said she has BD passport. Maybe she will be happy there

 

[Bigboii]

Born in Britain it's a british problem not a Bangladeshi one

Her skin color tho that's not "british" enough I guess...

 

[RajBan]

This is a horrible precedent being set

Shamima begum is a British national she was born in this country and grew up here.

She was a minor at 15 and was groomed in a vulnerable state, just like the white girls who were groomed by grooming gangs and known as angels whilst this girl is somehow a devil. Same thing can be said about those girls they knew about drugs pimps and sex so they were asking for it. So how come its one rule for white girls and another rule for a 15 yr old muslim girl?

Shamima begum mother died of cancer whilst she was 14 and 15 and then subsequently she went to Syria after her father married again Its pretty obvious there was some psychological problem here from her mothers death here

I'm not excusing what she did she should be tried in the UK and if found guilty locked away.

But the fact is by law shamima was a child.
She was groomed manipulated and questions need to be asked how 3 schoolgirls managed to fly to Turkey without a passport and no one picked up anything .

On top of that she has lost 3 children the last one is totally fault of sajid javid who would not rescue the baby which later died in the camp.

On human rights grounds and basic humanity what this British goverment has done is absolutely disgusting to its own citizen.

A responsible state is supposed to bring its own criminal back and try them in the court of law.

All right points. But I don't think she will recieve any sympathy. It's like arguments against capital punishment

 

[the Great Khan]

She does have a Bangladesh passport, so she can go and stay in a safe environment if she wants. She need not go to UK again necessarily.

I dont believe this is the case. She can get bangladeshi nationality if she wants based on her parents but she doesnt possess a passport.

Secondly a young british person sets up a nazi terrorist cell from his grandma's cottage and is convicted of doing so. But he didnt even serve a jail sentence. Which clearly shows that the home secretary can revoke the citizenship as they like based on flimsy evidence. hell they havent even heard the case for or against Begum yet. Surely everyone has the right to defend themselves in a court of law??

 

[the Great Khan]

Indeed the question we should be asking is why are they reluctant to get her into court? what do they have to hide? What will we find out?

 

[Stewie]

Will UK do the same to a Jihadi John (a white guy who joined these terrorists)?

Where will he go? This woman is a product of Britain and their underground extremist Muslim culture. They need to deal with her.

 

[Robert]

Would you encourage anyone you know or care about to take the path she took?

Why is the answer no?

That should explain it.

It doesn’t. By talking to her, the security services can learn more about radicalism and how to counter it.

 

[Robert]

there are many other security threats within the UK who have not had their citizenship taken away including returning male fighters and others who fought for terror groups. What about Northern Irish terrorists who possesed british passports?

It seems this has been done to send a message.

I can only think that Sajid did it to avoid accusations that he was “soft” on Muslim terrorists. Either that or playing to the xenophobic crowd. Or both.

 

[Technics 1210]

It sets a terrible precedent. Her most fundamental rights have been taken away. What crime has she committed?

She hasn't commited a crime as per UK law, but neither has Blair, but we all know he should be tried for war crimes.

Her citizenship was revoked based on security grounds. You know the insider rule built on the war on terror etc. She's deemed a terrorist sympathiser thus is a security threat to the UK.

The UK is a bigger dictatorship than Russia. You just don't see it.

 

[Bigboii]

She is a security threat. What are the odds she isn’t a covert operative? 1%, 5%,90% doesn’t matter.

It sets a good precedent. You go against the country and its values once, that’s it. Too bad.

Why isn’t she seeking asylum elsewhere?

Doesn’t deserve sympathy.

This age card people play is why terrorists target kids to be perfect soldiers. See it in Africa, happened with LTTE.

Good call I would say. People needs such examples to fall in line.

She should be jailed for it hell you can carry out a death penalty on her that's not the issue
You can do any number of things to her but it must be done in her home country

The citizenship being taken from her is a bad precedent and can be applied in cases not as "dramatic" as this

 

[Technics 1210]

This woman showed no remorse despite her interviews and opportunities. This is why she was stripped of her citizenship.

Send her back to Bangladesh, she can seek asylum in Modi's India.

 

[RajBan]

Indeed the question we should be asking is why are they reluctant to get her into court? what do they have to hide? What will we find out?

Maybe they feel once they start the trial it will become all political thereby limiting their power to take an executive decision? Your question is valid thought.

 

[silentkiller187]

she should be bought to UK then locked up, shes UK's problem.

This issue sets a dangerous precedent, whilst i am not condoning what she has done, as far as i know she has not committed a crime or been charged as such infront of a judge yet her citizenship was revoked, soon they will make taking passports away the norm.

 

[leonidas_alexandar]

I can understand citizenship being scrapped for naturalized citizens who are not born in the UK but for someone who was actually born in the UK - how can their citizenship even be rescinded?

If this is taken to courts - will it stand legal scrutiny?

 

[Bi_Jamalo]

It sets a terrible precedent. Her most fundamental rights have been taken away. What crime has she committed?

Exactly. I was thinking the same thing that what crime has he committed? Did she kill or harm anyone physically?

All she did was to go to a foreign country, lived there for a while and started a family.

 

[Stewie]

I can understand citizenship being scrapped for naturalized citizens who are not born in the UK but for someone who was actually born in the UK - how can their citizenship even be rescinded?

If this is taken to courts - will it stand legal scrutiny?

I agree. This decision can never be justified in the court of law. The UK is trying to wash their hands off her when she is their problem and was radicalized in the UK of all places.

 

[faraz39]

So the underage white girls caught up in the grooming saga are considered victims and given help but the Muslim non-white British born underage girl brainwashed by ISIS is considered a terrorist and left to rot overseas.

Double standards and hypocrisy.

 

[Bigboii]

So the underage white girls caught up in the grooming saga are considered victims and given help but the Muslim non-white British born underage girl brainwashed by ISIS is considered a terrorist and left to rot overseas.

Double standards and hypocrisy.

yeah thats not comparable tbh
those poor girls were genuine victims but she is as much a victim as a young guy in inner city commiting a murder

sure he was the victim of his circumstances but he still deserved the punishment
those girls were rape victims with NO blame on thier part (unlike her who joined a terrorist group and the kid who killed a man)

 

[faraz39]

yeah thats not comparable tbh
those poor girls were genuine victims but she is as much a victim as a young guy in inner city commiting a murder

sure he was the victim of his circumstances but he still deserved the punishment
those girls were rape victims with NO blame on thier part (unlike her who joined a terrorist group and the kid who killed a man)

There is no evidence she killed anyone. She was married to those who did but that's not a crime. She was brainwashed just like the grooming victims were and both were underage yet only one is seen as a victim.

The grooming girls were also associated with those were in gangs and did crime. Why not hold them responsible too just like Shamima Begum?

 

[Stewie]

UK doesn't grant citizenship on basis of being born in UK.

Doesn't the OP says that the supreme court of UK upheld this.

whatever the circumstances through which she got it, point is she only has UK citizenship. I do not believe i read anywhere she has BD citizenship as well. She might but I dont think she ever lived there. She is was born and raised in Britain and is Britain's responsbility.

First of all they need to crackdown on these radicalization centers in Britain. They seem to be worse than ME, Afghanistan, Northern areas of Pakistan. I am sure the local sensible folks of pakistani origin would welcome such a move.

 

[IMMY69]

This has set a very very bad precedent.
I do hope her lawyer continues to fight this out in the courts.

 

[KingKhanWC]

This is a horrible precedent being set

Shamima begum is a British national she was born in this country and grew up here.

She was a minor at 15 and was groomed in a vulnerable state, just like the white girls who were groomed by grooming gangs and known as angels whilst this girl is somehow a devil. Same thing can be said about those girls they knew about drugs pimps and sex so they were asking for it. So how come its one rule for white girls and another rule for a 15 yr old muslim girl?

Shamima begum mother died of cancer whilst she was 14 and 15 and then subsequently she went to Syria after her father married again Its pretty obvious there was some psychological problem here from her mothers death here

I'm not excusing what she did she should be tried in the UK and if found guilty locked away.

But the fact is by law shamima was a child.
She was groomed manipulated and questions need to be asked how 3 schoolgirls managed to fly to Turkey without a passport and no one picked up anything .

On top of that she has lost 3 children the last one is totally fault of sajid javid who would not rescue the baby which later died in the camp.

On human rights grounds and basic humanity what this British goverment has done is absolutely disgusting to its own citizen.

A responsible state is supposed to bring its own criminal back and try them in the court of law.

100% spot on. A child was groomed but according to some courts only white children can be groomed.

What is sad is a lot of people in the UK support this decision. These idiots dont realise these laws and precidents are being set for them too in the future.

 

[sweep_shot]

I feel sad for her.

She is quite young. I think she deserves a second chance.

 

[srh]

Shamima Begum, who fled Britain as a schoolgirl to join Islamic State in Syria, has failed to restore her British citizenship after the supreme court ruled on Friday that she had lost her case.

The judgment from the UK’s highest court is a critical – and controversial – test case of the UK’s policy to strip the citizenship of Britons who went to join Isis and are being detained by Syrian Kurdish groups without trial.

Begum was 15 when she fled east London with two other school friends to join Isis in Syria six years ago. Her UK nationality was removed in 2019, shortly after she had been found by a journalist in a prison camp.

Although born and raised in the UK, Begum’s British citizenship was removed by the then home secretary Sajid Javid, who argued she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, the birth country of her parents.

Begum, now 21, fought that decision and wants to be allowed to return to the UK to pursue her legal challenge in person in a test case about the status of Britons who joined Isis and also had their citizenship revoked.

British law allows the home secretary to remove a person’s British citizenship if doing so would be “conducive to the public good”. However, it is illegal to revoke their nationality if doing so would leave them stateless.

A two-day hearing in the case in November heard that Begum was still considered by MI5 as a national security risk because although she had travelled out as a minor, she had “aligned” with the terror group.

Lord Pannick QC, representing Begum, said was unable to put her side of the case properly from al-Roj detention camp where she is held. He told the court she would be at risk of physical harm if she spoke by mobile phone to her British lawyers.

Pannick told the court that the Kurdish authorities in al-Roj camp “do not permit detainees to use their phones”. Those caught, he added, were “placed in isolation, separated from their children and beaten”.

Last July, the court of appeal unexpectedly ruled that Begum, who is being held by the Syrian Kurds, could return home to challenge the British government.

Friday’s ruling followed a Home Office decision to appeal against that decision – although supreme court judges were also considering her citizenship case if they decided not to allow her to return to the UK.

As a teenager, Begum was married to an Isis fighter while she was embroiled in the Syrian conflict and had three children, all of whom have since died. As Isis was defeated, she was captured by the Syrian Kurds in 2019 and has been in their detention ever since at camps whose condition has been described as “dire”.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/cour...zenship-court-rules/ar-BB1e2pSY?ocid=msedgntp

I dont like this decision. Just because you have done some very bad stuff, does not mean you should lose your citizenship especially when you are a born citizen. Canada had Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka who commit horrible crimes but Canada did not strip them from citizenship.

 

[faraz39]

This is a horrible precedent being set

Shamima begum is a British national she was born in this country and grew up here.

She was a minor at 15 and was groomed in a vulnerable state, just like the white girls who were groomed by grooming gangs and known as angels whilst this girl is somehow a devil. Same thing can be said about those girls they knew about drugs pimps and sex so they were asking for it. So how come its one rule for white girls and another rule for a 15 yr old muslim girl?

Shamima begum mother died of cancer whilst she was 14 and 15 and then subsequently she went to Syria after her father married again Its pretty obvious there was some psychological problem here from her mothers death here

I'm not excusing what she did she should be tried in the UK and if found guilty locked away.

But the fact is by law shamima was a child.
She was groomed manipulated and questions need to be asked how 3 schoolgirls managed to fly to Turkey without a passport and no one picked up anything .

On top of that she has lost 3 children the last one is totally fault of sajid javid who would not rescue the baby which later died in the camp.

On human rights grounds and basic humanity what this British goverment has done is absolutely disgusting to its own citizen.

A responsible state is supposed to bring its own criminal back and try them in the court of law.

Yeah, the double standards on ignoring how she and other girls were groomed is jarring. If she was white, she'd be in London right now without hesitation.

 

[shaz619]

I don't have any plans to join a terrorist group mater so I'm all good

They will kick you out anyway purely for not looking like the locals after the precedent which has been set, you don’t have many sympathies compared to other communities in the UK, this move will create more oppression of Muslims in the UK and encourage them being kicked out regardless of whether or not they are a terrorist etc if this woman was white where would she go?

 

[Romali_rotti]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XnC6ooKGjOs" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I do feel Shamima deserves a second chance as she was a child when she went to Syria and I do not agree with the UK Governments stance on this...

However if you watch from 3:15 onwards, 2 women from Kerala my home state now wants to come back.. Kerala is a terrorism hub for world wide recruits from Kashmir to Syria, For them I say::: Nahh sorry you can rot in Syria....

 

[Giannis]

This just shows that if you're not a "son of the soil", native white English person then your citizenship can be stripped any time, it means the BAME are British citizens on a conditional basis.

 

[Dios]

I usually detest terrorist sympathisers but this case is a travesty of justice. She was a minor who was groomed. Furthermore, the Bangladesh government has made it clear on multiple occasions that she was never a Bangladeshi citizen nor will she be granted citizenship or even be allowed to enter the country. Therefore, this ruling is effectively making her stateless.

By all means the UK government should try her and imprison her if found guilty of any crimes she has committed, according to UK law. The UK can't just abandon her or pawn her off to another country.

Sajid Javid is a sick, self-hating individual.

 

[Buffet]

Would you encourage anyone you know or care about to take the path she took?

Why is the answer no?

That should explain it.

To discourage, you shouldn't be taking away citizenship if a person is born there.

You can put her in jail for a long duration, but taking away citizenship seems like crossing the line. Next, you will have the government taking away citizenship for some other reasons.

 

[Buffet]

I usually detest terrorist sympathisers but this case is a travesty of justice. She was a minor who was groomed. Furthermore, the Bangladesh government has made it clear on multiple occasions that she was never a Bangladeshi citizen nor will she be granted citizenship or even be allowed to enter the country. Therefore, this ruling is effectively making her stateless.

By all means the UK government should try her and imprison her if found guilty of any crimes she has committed, according to UK law. The UK can't just abandon her or pawn her off to another country.

Sajid Javid is a sick, self-hating individual.

Agree strongly here. Just apply UK laws to punish her.

 

[GenericBrand]

What are her chances if she fights it, iirc you can't be stateless under International Law so Britain can't just up and revoke her citizenship like that since she has no other in the first place.

 

[Buffet]

What are her chances if she fights it, iirc you can't be stateless under International Law so Britain can't just up and revoke her citizenship like that since she has no other in the first place.

From the OP,

"it is illegal to revoke their nationality if doing so would leave them stateless"

The UK can't simply make their citizen stateless.

Anyway, without going into those details, no one should support such actions. It is a slippery slope. Once you allow such actions then the government will start taking citizenships for many other reasons. it shouldn't be allowed. kid was born in UK and had citizenship.

 

[Hasan]

She went over to sleep with ISIS terrorists but what about those who arm and funded ISIS? Should those individuals and regimes be also excluded from entering U.K.?

 

[Robert]

What are her chances if she fights it, iirc you can't be stateless under International Law so Britain can't just up and revoke her citizenship like that since she has no other in the first place.

The Home Secretary revoked her citizenship.

 

[CricketCartoons]

She went over to sleep with ISIS terrorists but what about those who arm and funded ISIS? Should those individuals and regimes be also excluded from entering U.K.?

Because what is difficult cannot be done, doesn't mean the easy should also not be done.

 

[IMMY69]

A lot of us here have British Born children, some very late in their teens and some even in University.
Imagine how these kids (young adults) feel when all they've ever known is England.

I consider myself as British, but my children consider themselves as English but now there are certain rules for some and different rules for others.

This ruling is deeply distressing

 

[Pakpak]

Absolutely ridiculous ruling. She was underage. A lot of laws always rule that an underage child can never consent properly or never understand or truly appreciate some actions. So why is her age not taken into account?

She was born in UK. Radicalised in UK, how is she not UK's problem. There are large number of British killers or gangsters or drug lords hiding in Spain or Eastern Europe. People who have actually killed British people. I don't remember their citizenship being taken away. Imagine if a Syrian went to UK to like this and the Syrians stripped his or her citizenship and that person was stuck in the UK, the entire British populace would be whining for the Syrians to take her back. So why is it okay for the British to dump her on the Syrians. If this was an IRA member who was British but Irish descent the British would never ever take away his citizenship

As thick and remorseless as she is, I'm afraid the ruling is a joke.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

A lot of us here have British Born children, some very late in their teens and some even in University.
Imagine how these kids (young adults) feel when all they've ever known is England.

I consider myself as British, but my children consider themselves as English but now there are certain rules for some and different rules for others.

This ruling is deeply distressing

This is why they got Sajid Javed and now Priti Patel to push the revoking of the citizenship. It removes any hint of racial bias if you can get "one of them to do it". She should have been brought home and tried, but perhaps they know they don't have that much they can pin on her other than being an ISIS groupie.

The whites who went to Syria illegally to fight against ISIS didn't just come home, they got all charges of illegal warmongering dropped, and they weren't groomed or underage. These judgements seem to be based more on sentiment than actual case details.

 

[Local.Dada]

Check out frontline documentary about child suicide bombers in Taliban. I think it’s available on YouTube.

Basically they rescue and try to rehabilitate 3 kids who were groomed to be suicide bombers.

It all looks great and heartwarming until the final credits where 2 of the kids had gone back to their old ways and one of them even died in an attack and 1 kid has assimilated back in the society.

These things happen. Also I mean how surreal is it that while most teen girls in the west reject boys for their height, hair,skin tone etc and dream about Robert Pattinson or whoever the hell the current heart throb is ,this girl had the maturity to marry an ISIS fighter. This isn’t seem girl from SWAT valley or some pind but from urban UK.

Chances are when you get brainwashed at that age it is tough to go back if not impossible.

Doesn’t deserve any sympathy whatsoever and no need for law and constitutional arguments. You have a tumor you get rid of it and put checks and balances in place for it to never come back.

Also I blame the parents. Sorry but most immigrant parents are hypocrites have no problem sipping champagne/wine, wearing western clothing and fit in and escape from their origin but they want their kids to have values from the Middle Ages and behave like they think kids behaved in 800-900 AD. I am not taking a dig at 1 religion here, it’s a subcontinent trait.

Good job by UK. Let her learn life lessons before a more fun afterlife.

 

[Bigboii]

Check out frontline documentary about child suicide bombers in Taliban. I think it’s available on YouTube.

Basically they rescue and try to rehabilitate 3 kids who were groomed to be suicide bombers.

It all looks great and heartwarming until the final credits where 2 of the kids had gone back to their old ways and one of them even died in an attack and 1 kid has assimilated back in the society.

These things happen. Also I mean how surreal is it that while most teen girls in the west reject boys for their height, hair,skin tone etc and dream about Robert Pattinson or whoever the hell the current heart throb is ,this girl had the maturity to marry an ISIS fighter. This isn’t seem girl from SWAT valley or some pind but from urban UK.

Chances are when you get brainwashed at that age it is tough to go back if not impossible.

Doesn’t deserve any sympathy whatsoever and no need for law and constitutional arguments. You have a tumor you get rid of it and put checks and balances in place for it to never come back.

Also I blame the parents. Sorry but most immigrant parents are hypocrites have no problem sipping champagne/wine, wearing western clothing and fit in and escape from their origin but they want their kids to have values from the Middle Ages and behave like they think kids behaved in 800-900 AD. I am not taking a dig at 1 religion here, it’s a subcontinent trait.

Good job by UK. Let her learn life lessons before a more fun afterlife.

The problem isn't that shouldn't take care of the problem
Yes carry out a sentence (if you think it isn't harsh enough go out and pass a law in parleiment making it harsher)

But the "punishment" must be carried out in her home country
That's all

 

[Local.Dada]

The problem isn't that shouldn't take care of the problem
Yes carry out a sentence (if you think it isn't harsh enough go out and pass a law in parleiment making it harsher)

But the "punishment" must be carried out in her home country
That's all

This is what will happen most likely if she is allowed back, some hotshot white “human rights”
Lawyer will fight her case citing her age, the fact that she lost her kids and “hardworking” husband.

If the court decide to punish her then there will be some as our PM calls them “andolanjeevis” protesting against dictatorial courts and using words like Nazi,Hitler etc. and probably a few tweets from you know who.

Then eventually under this nuisance,she will be released with a wrap on her wrists.

She will end up doing Ted Talks, writing a book and giving interviews and May be even a reality show.

Is it really worth it or does she really deserve it?

Sets a wrong precedent. Don’t need such headaches, let her be someone else’s problem or she can live in her adopted country of Syria.

Yes give her parents visiting visa or something when ever they want to go see her

 

[Bigboii]

There is no evidence she killed anyone. She was married to those who did but that's not a crime. She was brainwashed just like the grooming victims were and both were underage yet only one is seen as a victim.

The grooming girls were also associated with those were in gangs and did crime. Why not hold them responsible too just like Shamima Begum?

Joining a "Terrorist" group is a crime
Joining a criminal gang isn't a crime commiting "an action" while in that group is a crime
Those rape victims were groomed and raped

So from whichever presepective you look at it those victims didn't commit a "crime", the kid in the inner city joining a gang isn't a crime

But joining a Terrorist group is a crime that she knew she was commiting just like a murderer commiting a murder knew he was commiting a crime

If you think it shouldn't be a crime (just like joining a criminal gang) that's another issue

But she knew she was commiting a crime (even though she was groomed)
Just like a teenage murderer knew he was commiting a crime (even though he was groomed for it)

So those girls had only one thing in common "groomed" but unlike the other examples they didn't a crime

 

[Bigboii]

This is what will happen most likely if she is allowed back, some hotshot white “human rights”
Lawyer will fight her case citing her age, the fact that she lost her kids and “hardworking” husband.

If the court decide to punish her then there will be some as our PM calls them “andolanjeevis” protesting against dictatorial courts and using words like Nazi,Hitler etc. and probably a few tweets from you know who.

Then eventually under this nuisance,she will be released with a wrap on her wrists.

She will end up doing Ted Talks, writing a book and giving interviews and May be even a reality show.

Is it really worth it or does she really deserve it?

Sets a wrong precedent. Don’t need such headaches, let her be someone else’s problem or she can live in her adopted country of Syria.

Yes give her parents visiting visa or something when ever they want to go see her

But this shouldn't be how laws and civilized societies work

We simply can't take someone else's right (and believe me even serial killers have rights) because government/judiciary are scared/incompetent to thier jobs

You're punishing someone cause you think the system isn't competent enough to do thier jobs of giving her the punishment she deserves

Than it's the fault of the system not her and you can't punish her for the "perceived" faults of the system

This kind of thinking justifies extra juditial killings and we don't wa t that thinking to take root in a civilized society

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Check out frontline documentary about child suicide bombers in Taliban. I think it’s available on YouTube.

Basically they rescue and try to rehabilitate 3 kids who were groomed to be suicide bombers.

It all looks great and heartwarming until the final credits where 2 of the kids had gone back to their old ways and one of them even died in an attack and 1 kid has assimilated back in the society.

These things happen. Also I mean how surreal is it that while most teen girls in the west reject boys for their height, hair,skin tone etc and dream about Robert Pattinson or whoever the hell the current heart throb is ,this girl had the maturity to marry an ISIS fighter. This isn’t seem girl from SWAT valley or some pind but from urban UK.

Chances are when you get brainwashed at that age it is tough to go back if not impossible.

Doesn’t deserve any sympathy whatsoever and no need for law and constitutional arguments. You have a tumor you get rid of it and put checks and balances in place for it to never come back.

Also I blame the parents. Sorry but most immigrant parents are hypocrites have no problem sipping champagne/wine, wearing western clothing and fit in and escape from their origin but they want their kids to have values from the Middle Ages and behave like they think kids behaved in 800-900 AD. I am not taking a dig at 1 religion here, it’s a subcontinent trait.

Good job by UK. Let her learn life lessons before a more fun afterlife.

Firstly, she was never trained to be a suicide bomber so not sure why you are comparing with those who were.

Secondly, she didn't have "the maturity to marry an ISIS fighter" she was 15.

Thirdly, you are blaming the parents who she defied to run away and join ISIS.

I could go on, but really as you are a vocal supporter of hindutva parties in India we know where you are really coming from.

 

[Local.Dada]

Firstly, she was never trained to be a suicide bomber so not sure why you are comparing with those who were.

Secondly, she didn't have "the maturity to marry an ISIS fighter" she was 15.

Thirdly, you are blaming the parents who she defied to run away and join ISIS.

I could go on, but really as you are a vocal supporter of hindutva parties in India we know where you are really coming from.

I apologize I didn’t know that there were different caveats and job descriptions and related punishments for joining ISIS like: joining as a fighter, moral support, bride etc.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I apologize I didn’t know that there were different caveats and job descriptions and related punishments for joining ISIS like: joining as a fighter, moral support, bride etc.

Well that's the point, she is a British citizen, if she is brought back then she can be tried, and all those caveats can be applied and upheld or rejected according to the law. We British do take some pride in our justice system, it has been honed and refined for centuries now, we should show more confidence in it without looking for shortcuts to bypass it. If she is still considered a danger to the public, she can be sentenced accordingly.

 

[Local.Dada]

Well that's the point, she is a British citizen, if she is brought back then she can be tried, and all those caveats can be applied and upheld or rejected according to the law. We British do take some pride in our justice system, it has been honed and refined for centuries now, we should show more confidence in it without looking for shortcuts to bypass it. If she is still considered a danger to the public, she can be sentenced accordingly.

Well that’s the fallacy of most arguments here.The day she left Britain illegally to join forces that work against her country, that’s as good as announcing renunciation.

She didn’t go there on a Job or spousal visa.

In fact you should take pride in the fact that British have a tough and resilient policy against seditionists and terrorists.

In fact I wish India could make such tough calls without fear or any backlash.

Just letting all minorities (not just Hindus) caused a uproar there or giving visa to Taslima who was just a writer leave alone a terrorist.

So this is a commendable and admirable move by Britain. Not sure as a proud “Britisher” you are not seeing a this logic.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Well that’s the fallacy of most arguments here.The day she left Britain illegally to join forces that work against her country, that’s as good as announcing renunciation.

She didn’t go there on a Job or spousal visa.

In fact you should take pride in the fact that British have a tough and resilient policy against seditionists and terrorists.

In fact I wish India could make such tough calls without fear or any backlash.

Just letting all minorities (not just Hindus) caused a uproar there or giving visa to Taslima who was just a writer leave alone a terrorist.

So this is a commendable and admirable move by Britain. Not sure as a proud “Britisher” you are not seeing a this logic.

We British believe in our justice system, I don't believe in the long run, pandering to the whims of the rags will hold up well. If the law isn't tough enough then change the law, but don't try to bypass them.

You shouldn't be surprised that I don't see your logic, I am British, you are Indian. I will back our sense of right and wrong any day over Indian. Not that I have any problem with Indian law, I'm sure it is fine for your country. It will reflect the public ultimately.

 

[Technics 1210]

What nonsense displayed here.

This women had children and was given an opportunity to tell her side of the story - she showed no remorse and this after she turned into adult of 18+ years, a mother.

Good riddance to her. Let he be the fuel of hell fire and a lesson to the UK population.

Don't liberals cloud the situation.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I think what some people don't understand is that it is about the law and consistent application, nothing more nothing less. It's not about what someone in India thinks, it's not about what Terry down the pub in Milwall thinks, it's only about the law.

Firstly, the law needs to be applied the same regardless of ethnic heritage, not sure that has been the case here.

Secondly, if we apply the law consistently, then we should have confidence in our laws honed over centuries, and our judges and juries comprised of the great British people, to arrive at a just verdict.

All other opinions are fine as opinions, but should probably be confined to the Daily Star or perhaps the RSS newsletter.

 

[Technics 1210]

I think what some people don't understand is that it is about the law and consistent application, nothing more nothing less. It's not about what someone in India thinks, it's not about what Terry down the pub in Milwall thinks, it's only about the law.

Firstly, the law needs to be applied the same regardless of ethnic heritage, not sure that has been the case here.

Secondly, if we apply the law consistently, then we should have confidence in our laws honed over centuries, and our judges and juries comprised of the great British people, to arrive at a just verdict.

All other opinions are fine as opinions, but should probably be confined to the Daily Star or perhaps the RSS newsletter.

Which law prevents the revoking of citizenship?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Which law prevents the revoking of citizenship?

As I said, it's not about the law itself, it's about consistent application. It seems this revocation of citizenship is only being considered for non-whites, and to that end, brown sahibs are being appointed to administer the revocation to win some.....brownie points with the Micks and the Phils. And the Prabu's it seems.

Americans are taking back their citizens for what it's worth. Clearly they are confident they can deal with them.

 

[Technics 1210]

As I said, it's not about the law itself, it's about consistent application. It seems this revocation of citizenship is only being considered for non-whites, and to that end, brown sahibs are being appointed to administer the revocation to win some.....brownie points with the Micks and the Phils. And the Prabu's it seems.

Americans are taking back their citizens for what it's worth. Clearly they are confident they can deal with them.

Matey. The white terrorist sympathisers in the UK demonstrated remorse. SB didn't show any remorse despite growing into an adult and being a mother.

Plus many whites in the UK do not have dual citizenship; and I am refering to the indigenous ones.

The fact SB has dual citizenship and showed no remorse is the reason it boils down to revoking UK citizenship.

Remember, many browns are dual national in the UK, despite being born here.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Matey. The white terrorist sympathisers in the UK demonstrated remorse. SB didn't show any remorse despite growing into an adult and being a mother.

Plus many whites in the UK do not have dual citizenship; and I am refering to the indigenous ones.

The fact SB has dual citizenship and showed no remorse is the reason it boils down to revoking UK citizenship.

Remember, many browns are dual national in the UK, despite being born here.

I have heard this argument, but don't know the details. Who is making this judgement of lack of remorse? What are we basing this assessment on?

 

[Pakpak]

I think what some people don't understand is that it is about the law and consistent application, nothing more nothing less. It's not about what someone in India thinks, it's not about what Terry down the pub in Milwall thinks, it's only about the law.

Firstly, the law needs to be applied the same regardless of ethnic heritage, not sure that has been the case here.

Secondly, if we apply the law consistently, then we should have confidence in our laws honed over centuries, and our judges and juries comprised of the great British people, to arrive at a just verdict.

All other opinions are fine as opinions, but should probably be confined to the Daily Star or perhaps the RSS newsletter.

Spot on. Also a simple Google search shows she has no Bangladeshi citizenship.

Nothing to do with liberals or not, esp since some posters in this thread show more views like IS than the average Brit, it's the fact many non brown British people have killed actual British citizens and hide in Europe but their citizenship is safe.

It sets a very bad and dangerous precedent.

 

[Technics 1210]

I have heard this argument, but don't know the details. Who is making this judgement of lack of remorse? What are we basing this assessment on?

I suggest you go look at her interviews.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47229181

PS: By most Browns I mean Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Indians do not have dual nationality in the UK.