Isis Briton Shamima Begum pleads to return to UK after giving birth

  • 68 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for uninspiredcup
uninspiredcup

59332

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 86

User Lists: 2

#1  Edited By uninspiredcup
Member since 2013 • 59332 Posts

Opinion? I mean her kid didn't do anything. She's a piece of shit as far as I'm concerned.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/17/shamima-begum-who-fled-uk-to-join-isis-has-given-birth-say-family

A teenager who travelled to Syria to join Islamic State has called on people in the UK to have sympathy for her, the day after giving birth to a boy in a refugee camp.

Shamima Begum, 19, who left the UK with two school friends in 2015, spoke to the Times while heavily pregnant earlier this week from the al-Hawl refugee camp in north-eastern Syria. She said she was desperate to come back to the UK.

Her family’s lawyer, Tasnime Akunjee, said Begum had given birth on Saturday and that, though they had not had direct contact with her, they understood that both she and the baby were in good health.

Speaking to Sky News on Sunday while sitting with her newborn, she said: “I feel a lot of people should have sympathy for me, for everything I’ve been through. You know, I didn’t know what I was getting into when I left.

“I was hoping that maybe for the sake of me and my child they let me come back. Because I can’t live in this camp forever. It’s not really possible.”

The possibility

Akunjee said news of the birth had changed the dynamics of the situation and increased pressure on the government to let Begum, and now her child, back.

“We are now dealing with an innocent baby who we would like to get out of the camp and back to the UK,” he said.

“We would like every effort made by the British government to get the baby back despite the words of the home secretary, which have been shown to be wrong by the justice secretary and the head of MI6 and experts in international law.”

Asked to respond to concerns that she could be potentially dangerous if she returned, Begum said: “They don’t have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous. When I went to Syria I was just a housewife, the entire four years I stayed at home, took care of my husband, took care of my kids. I never did anything. I never made propaganda, I never encouraged people to come to Syria.”

Begum said she had not met any British consulate officials, only journalists. Asked what she thought life may be like for her back in the UK, she said: “I don’t know, because I know there would be a lot of restrictions on me … I don’t know if they will take my child away.”

Begum married Yago Riedijk, 27, a Dutch convert to Islam, 10 days after arriving in the city of Raqqa in 2015. She had two children, both of whom died. She told the Times she wanted to return home to protect the health of her new baby.

It emerged on Sunday that Begum has named the child Jarah after one of the two children she has lost since November 2018.

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you

Read more

Begum’s family have called on the British government to allow her to return to the UK so her child can be cared for in “peace and security”. But the home secretary, Sajid Javid, said he would not hesitate to block her return.

“My message is clear: if you have supported terrorist organisations abroad I will not hesitate to prevent your return,” he said. “If you do manage to return you should be ready to be questioned, investigated and potentially prosecuted.”

Writing in the Sunday Times, Javid said: “As a father I feel compassion for anyone born or brought into a conflict zone. But in considering what actions need to be taken now, I have to think about the safety and security of children living in our country.”

In a statement issued on Friday, the family said her apparent lack of regret for joining Isis should be seen as the “words of a girl who was groomed at the age of 15”.

“Now we are faced with the situation of knowing that Shamima’s young children have died – children we will never come to know as a family. This is the hardest of news to bear,” the statement read.

“The welfare of Shamima’s unborn child is of paramount concern to our family, and we will do everything within our power to protect that baby who is entirely blameless in these events.”

Helen Clark, a former head of the United Nations Development Programme and prime minister of New Zealand, said Begum had been groomed and had the right to return to the UK.

“She is a UK citizen, she’s born there. The head of MI6 says she has a right to return,” she told Newstalk ZB in New Zealand on Monday. “It’s always possible that people can turn their lives around. We’ve seen that before.”

“I’m appalled by the ‘no regret’ attitude she showed,” she added. “But nonetheless she is a citizen, and in the end we do have obligations to citizens.”

Speaking on the BBC’s The Andrew Marr Show, the culture secretary, Jeremy Wright, said the nationality of Begum’s child was “not straightforward”. He said there were concerns about her health and the health of her baby, but that, if she did return to the UK she would have to “answer for her actions”.

“British citizens who only have British citizenship are entitled to come back to the UK. That’s a matter of international law. But as a matter of international law too, and domestic law potentially, people also have to take responsibility for their actions, and she will be no exception to that.”

Shamima Begum,Kadiza Sultana and Amira Abase followed their school friend Sharmeena Begum in travelling to Syria to join Isis in the half-term break of February 2015.

The three pupils at Bethnal Green academy, aged between 15 and 16 at the time, took a Turkish Airlines flight from Gatwick to Istanbul before crossing into Syria – the same route taken by Begum three months earlier.

All four ended up in Raqqa, where they were married off to jihadists who had come to Syria from around the world. Speaking to the Times, Shamima Begum confirmed that Sultana had been killed, aged 17, in an airstrike in May 2016.

Shamina Begum said she heard two weeks ago that Amira Abase and Sharmeena Begum were still alive. They had decided to stay on in Baghuz, Isis’s last stronghold, where she last saw them in June.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#2 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

Hmm, think I will have to agree with the UK, her and her child is a major security risk and considering the bombing in Manchester was a young adult, this kid has a very high risk of growing up and ending on the wrong side. Especially with a "mom" this young and also who shows no remorse or reasonable thought about what ISIS really is and only wants to go back because it´s the last option.

Avatar image for sealionact
sealionact

9839

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#3 sealionact
Member since 2014 • 9839 Posts

She stays in the hellhole she wished for. Had she shown a little more remorse, I might feel sorry for her but saying that the Manchester bombing was justified was proof enough that she won't change her radical views.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
uninspiredcup

59332

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 86

User Lists: 2

#4 uninspiredcup
Member since 2013 • 59332 Posts

I mean, just letting her raise the baby at all is a bad idea.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127528

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127528 Posts

Adopt the kid maybe. If she is allowed to return I vote for many years behind bars and used as an example as to why doing this is a bad idea.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

58509

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#6 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 58509 Posts

Let the kid back in with absolutely ZERO chance of him/her knowing of their mother and father. Seriously, kid is blameless, but the mother can go straight to jail for all I care. Or stay where she is.

What kind of person willingly leaves what is, relatively speaking, paradise to return to a backwards shithole like Syria? Best-case scenario an insane person (who shouldn't have a kid), worst-case scenario a psychopathic murdering terrorist (who should have a kid AND be allowed in the country they betrayed).

@uninspiredcup said:

I mean, just letting her raise the baby at all is a bad idea.

Two of her kids have already died, so yeah. Definitely not a good idea.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23995

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23995 Posts

Let the kid back in, is something I am fine with. But the only part of UK where the mother belongs is in a prison cell. Let her stay in Syria, she made the choice. And her stance on the Manchester bombing means she is a potential risk.

Avatar image for CreasianDevaili
CreasianDevaili

4429

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 CreasianDevaili
Member since 2005 • 4429 Posts

I was iffy on it until I read about her lack of regret and regarding the Manchester bombing as fair equivalency. I really have doubts that she has done nothing "bad" while she was with ISIS if even during her attempted reconciliation with the UK she sides with ISIS.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

@horgen said:

Adopt the kid maybe. If she is allowed to return I vote for many years behind bars and used as an example as to why doing this is a bad idea.

I agree to a large extent. Why should anyone take her at her word if she reenters? Are we to expect that she won't continue down the line of radicalization, or influence the ideas/beliefs of her child? ISIS could be considered the enemy of any nation state and joining them seen as a type of treason.

I'd be in favor of having the child handed over to someone else to be raised. Anyone that knowingly joined ISIS isn't fit to be a parent in my eyes.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
Solaryellow

7035

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Solaryellow
Member since 2013 • 7035 Posts

The grass was greener on the other side, right Begum?

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
uninspiredcup

59332

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 86

User Lists: 2

#11 uninspiredcup
Member since 2013 • 59332 Posts

Loading Video...

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

@uninspiredcup said:

Hilarious to see someone complain about having their citizenship deprived in this situation. Normally in ISIS they do that by simply depriving your body of a head.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
Sevenizz

6462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#13 Sevenizz
Member since 2010 • 6462 Posts

Let her and the kid rot there. That child was not born on UK soil so he has no ties or rights to his mother’s past.

She made a life altering mistake and must live with the consequences. She needs to be made an example of for future dissidents or others in her situation.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#14 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

Right call from the UK home secretary

Still, though it´s a 15-year kid so it´s a tough call but only option. The UK can´t have her and her husband and kids roaming free within the UK radicalising others or perhaps taking that last step themselves.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38691

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#15 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38691 Posts

lesson for the kids out there.

don't make life-altering decisions at the age of 15...

Avatar image for robert_sparkes
robert_sparkes

7286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#16 robert_sparkes
Member since 2018 • 7286 Posts

She went at her own freewill nobody forced her.

Avatar image for blackhairedhero
Blackhairedhero

3231

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#17 Blackhairedhero
Member since 2018 • 3231 Posts

Send them both back to the shithole they came from.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127528

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#18 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127528 Posts

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@horgen said:

Adopt the kid maybe. If she is allowed to return I vote for many years behind bars and used as an example as to why doing this is a bad idea.

I agree to a large extent. Why should anyone take her at her word if she reenters? Are we to expect that she won't continue down the line of radicalization, or influence the ideas/beliefs of her child? ISIS could be considered the enemy of any nation state and joining them seen as a type of treason.

I'd be in favor of having the child handed over to someone else to be raised. Anyone that knowingly joined ISIS isn't fit to be a parent in my eyes.

I haven't seen the interview, only read about it, and also have no idea what she was like before she left. Granted I don't think she was one of the brightest students... But still. She isn't brainwashed and by someone else tried to be used as getting a (another) base in UK?

Avatar image for MirkoS77
MirkoS77

17694

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#19 MirkoS77
Member since 2011 • 17694 Posts

Take the child from her and leave her to rot.

Avatar image for sakaixx
sakaiXx

16019

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 5

#20  Edited By sakaiXx
Member since 2013 • 16019 Posts

Let the child get in and the grand father can take care of the child but she... Uh she is pretty radicalized and pretty high risk, its up to UK if they want to take the risk. Personally I am fine as long as she takes some re-education stuff.

have enjoyed companies of many muslim and had some great friends. Many of them opposed of what ISIS/Daesh is doing and just want to be left alone, pursue their dreams but unfortunately got dragged through the mud due to Daesh image. Her coming back to UK may unfortunately will make these peaceful people uncomfortable due to how public will view this lady who is linked with Daesh with scrutiny.

Avatar image for CreasianDevaili
CreasianDevaili

4429

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 CreasianDevaili
Member since 2005 • 4429 Posts

Could the U.K. even legally take the child? I'm sure they could ask, but does anyone here think the mother would let that happen if she isn't allowed in as well?

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
uninspiredcup

59332

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 86

User Lists: 2

#22 uninspiredcup
Member since 2013 • 59332 Posts

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-02-22/jihadi-jack-interview-jack-letts-itv-news-syria/

Another one begging to come back.

'Jihadi Jack' interview: Homesick Jack Letts tells ITV News he wants to return from Syria but 'no one cares' about him

The Briton, known as 'Jihadi Jack' speaks to ITV News' Rohit Kachroo. Credit: ITV News

The Briton known as Jihadi Jack has exclusively told ITV News he wants to come home after being held for two years in a Kurdish prison - but doubts the UK will move to bring him back.

Oxford-born Jack Letts, who was nicknamed Jihadi Jack by media after running away to Syria in 2014, said he was missing his mum and the home comforts of British life, including pasties and episodes of Doctor Who.

The British-Canadian spoke to ITV News Security Editor Rohit Kachroo from his prison in Syria, where he has been held after being charged by the YPG with being a member of Isis.

"If the UK accepted me then I’d go back to the UK, it’s my home. But I don’t think that’s going to happen," he said in the wide-ranging interview.

etts, who holds dual nationality through his Canadian father John Letts and British mother Sally Lane, said he hadn't spoken to his parents in two years and doubted officials from either nation will "come and help me" because "no one really cares".

His parents face a trial in the UK over claims they funded terrorism by sending their son money. The couple deny the charge and insist their son went to Syria to help refugees.

ITV News cannot refer to any matters relating to the legal proceedings.

Letts, 23, willingly showed Kachroo his scars as he described how he reached Syria five years ago after dropping out of school aged 18.

Jack Letts pulled back his sleeve to show Rohit Kachroo bomb scarring on his arm. Credit: ITV News

He said he learned Arabic in Jordan before moving on to Kuwait and then eventually Iraq and Syria, ending up living on "the Oxford Street of Raqqa" and marrying an Iraqi woman, who has since given birth to his son.

Letts admitted his experience in Raqqa at one point left him welcoming 2015's Paris attacks after seeing children killed at first hand by coalition jet bombing raids.

"To be honest at the time I thought it was a good thing," he told ITV News, when asked about his reaction to the terror attacks that left 130 dead in the French capital.

"Genuinely, at the time, we had this idea that when you're living in Raqqa getting bombed every five minutes by coalition jets and you see literally, I've seen children burnt alive."

Addressing the Bataclan concert victims he said: "At the time, you have this sort of - and this is what war does to you - you have this idea of 'why shouldn't it happen to them?'

"But then I realised, they have nothing to do with it."

The Briton, known as 'Jihadi Jack' speaks to ITV News' Rohit Kachroo in Syria. Credit: ITV News

Letts, who was arrested en route to Turkey as he tried to leave Syria, said censored letters from his family - delivered by the Red Cross - were his only contact to his homeland.

Asked what he missed about the life he left behind Britain, he said: "I miss people mostly. I miss my mum. I know that sounds a bit toddler-ish."

He went on: "Even if I could just see my mum - I would like just a phone call, I don't know if Britain can do that for me here, but I'd like just a phone call to my mum - it’s been two years.

Jack Letts said missing pasties and Doctor Who 'sounds a bit stupid'. Credit: ITV News

"If I could make a request. I'm probably not in a position to make requests. That’s it all, really. I miss my mum.

"What else do I miss? I miss pasties. It's not really English - sort of Scottish isn’t it? I miss pasties. And Doctor Who. Sounds a bit stupid… that’s all."

Kachroo spoke to Letts two days after interviewing IS runaway bride Shamima Begum in a Kurdish-controlled camp in Syria.

The former London schoolgirl, after learning from ITV News she has been stripped of her British citizenship, is appealing to return to the UK with her newborn son.

Letts, who has still never seen his own son and remains unaware of his wife's location, said he hoped nations will work to bring those held in the Kurdish camps home, with women and children the priority.

"The women who are in the camps, there's kids who die in the camps," he said.

"If I have to stay here two more years - I'm not trying to make myself seem like some sort of hero - if I have to stay here for two more years and they have to take back the women in the camps, I don't mind.

"But it feels a bit ridiculous now - if my request is anything, is that they change this policy, they do something here."

He remained pessimistic of his chances of being brought back to Britain or taken in by Canada.

"I don’t think I’m going to be given ... back to Britain, for example ... or some Canadian official is going to come and help me because like I said - no one really cares," he said.

He said he was "supposedly" a dual national, adding: "I did at one point in my life have a Canadian passport, I don’t know if it’s still valid."

Asked if he felt British or Canadian, he said: "I feel British. I’m British. My dad's Canadian.

"If the UK accepted me then I’d go back to the UK, it’s my home. But I don’t think that’s going to happen."

He said he has approached both British and Canadian officials but has not received a reply.

Asked about Letts' situation, a Home Office spokesperson said: "In recent days the Home Secretary has clearly stated that his priority is the safety and security of Britain and the people who live here.

"In order to protect this country, he has the power to deprive someone of their British citizenship where it would not render them stateless.

"We do not comment on individual cases, but any decisions to deprive individuals of their citizenship are based on all available evidence and not taken lightly."

Avatar image for vfighter
VFighter

11031

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 VFighter
Member since 2016 • 11031 Posts

Let somebody adopt the kid, let her stay in the hellhole she's made for herself, problem solved.

Avatar image for mandzilla
mandzilla

4686

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#24  Edited By mandzilla  Moderator
Member since 2017 • 4686 Posts

Sajid Javid took the wrong approach on this imo, ignoring international law as well as the Home Office's own guidelines for handling returning ISIS fighters and sympathisers (probably influenced by Trump's comments and UK far-right media).

She's a British citizen and should be held to account for her actions and face justice in a British courtroom. Also, the child has done nothing wrong, so I don't see why it should be left to 'rot' in a refugee camp.

Avatar image for Wolfgang133
Wolfgang133

83

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 Wolfgang133
Member since 2011 • 83 Posts

I agree with most others commenting on this post. Let her stay rot or die in Syria. As for her child he or she can come to the U.K. I have no problem with that.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#26  Edited By ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

@uninspiredcup:

Shamima Begum wanted an Islamic civilisation hence leave her in Syria.

Shamima Begum is not Dina Ali Lasloom i.e. Ex-Muslim woman trying to escape Saudi Arabia.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

16606

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27  Edited By blaznwiipspman1
Member since 2007 • 16606 Posts

Legally interesting case, because she's fully British born there. The question is how can she be not allowed in? She should be able to walk into a port of entry and the British government would have no choice but to accept her in. Though she probably doesn't have any of her papers

Personally I think she shouldn't be allowed in, but if you exile someone born in the country, then that opens a whole new can of worms. You can probably exile anyone you want if that's the case.

Avatar image for kadin_kai
Kadin_Kai

2247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#28 Kadin_Kai
Member since 2015 • 2247 Posts

Personally, I think she should be allowed back to the UK and receive rehabilitation.

She was a brainwashed kid when she went out there and she remains delusional as a young adult. She is just 19 years old and deserves a second chance.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
uninspiredcup

59332

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 86

User Lists: 2

#29  Edited By uninspiredcup
Member since 2013 • 59332 Posts

@mandzilla said:

Sajid Javid took the wrong approach on this imo, ignoring international law as well as the Home Office's own guidelines for handling returning ISIS fighters and sympathisers (probably influenced by Trump's comments and UK far-right media).

She's a British citizen and should be held to account for her actions and face justice in a British courtroom. Also, the child has done nothing wrong, so I don't see why it should be left to 'rot' in a refugee camp.

Well, she left for Syria as an act of war. Basically invasion, supporting a proto-state that done horrible unfathomable shit. Should be Syria dealing with her.

Sajid Javid probably is trying to save-face, he's generally seen as a soft-touch. Regardless of the Mirror etc.. I honestly couldn't give a shit, I sure as hell don't want her back here nor my tax money paying for her.

We can say "oh she was just brainwashed". Well, so was the lad in the Manchester bombing. So were the fellows who shot up France and drove trucks killing hundreds of people. I wouldn't want to pay tax to help them either, rather it went to the victims or preventing it from happening in the future than a mop up job for those already indoctrinated.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#30 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts
@blaznwiipspman1 said:

Legally interesting case, because she's fully British born there. The question is how can she be not allowed in? She should be able to walk into a port of entry and the British government would have no choice but to accept her in. Though she probably doesn't have any of her papers

Personally I think she shouldn't be allowed in, but if you exile someone born in the country, then that opens a whole new can of worms. You can probably exile anyone you want if that's the case.

Yup, it´s interesting Legally especially because the UK claims they can take the British citizenship because she is under 21 and under Bangladeshi law, she is entitled to become a citizen there until she is 21 because both her parents have Bangladeshi passports.

The question is though since Bangladesh has said no go to it if Britain will stand firm on theirs and if she will take this all the way and end up in one of the European courts, either the EU or the EHRC.

From the interview though, it seems she will try a third option instead and just move to the Netherlands with her husband.

Avatar image for deactivated-5de67c4d9cb12
deactivated-5de67c4d9cb12

392

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#31 deactivated-5de67c4d9cb12
Member since 2019 • 392 Posts

Are there no clear laws already on the books regarding this?

Avatar image for deactivated-6068afec1b77d
deactivated-6068afec1b77d

2539

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#32 deactivated-6068afec1b77d
Member since 2017 • 2539 Posts

I personally think she should either receive the death penalty, life in person or community service.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#33 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts
@volsung said:

Are there no clear laws already on the books regarding this?

Regarding what? removing a person's citizenship? Because the problem is not that the UK can´t legally remove a British citizens passport as long as the person has dual citizenship.

So the problem is that the UK has ratified an international treaty that makes it illegal to make anyone stateless. Which they technically have done.

So Bangladesh law now plays a role, does she automatically get citizenship because of her parents or is the law that she merely has a right to apply for citizenship.

Avatar image for deactivated-5de67c4d9cb12
deactivated-5de67c4d9cb12

392

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#34  Edited By deactivated-5de67c4d9cb12
Member since 2019 • 392 Posts
@Jacanuk said:
@volsung said:

Are there no clear laws already on the books regarding this?

Regarding what?

Her situation. If she's a citizen she should be entitled to return. If she's broken laws she should be arrested. Why is this complicated? Or do I just not understand?

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#35 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts
@volsung said:

Her situation. If she's a citizen she should be entitled to return. And how she's treated on arrival should depend on if she's broken any laws. It doesn't seem that complicated.

Well, as I wrote.

Like any other sovereign country, the UK has laws that give them legal options to remove people permanently, they do not want inside their country, as long as they are not left stateless.

So you are correct it is not that complicated.

Avatar image for deactivated-5de67c4d9cb12
deactivated-5de67c4d9cb12

392

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#36  Edited By deactivated-5de67c4d9cb12
Member since 2019 • 392 Posts

But the home secretary, Sajid Javid, said he would not hesitate to block her return.

How is this even his call to make?

Avatar image for mandzilla
mandzilla

4686

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#37  Edited By mandzilla  Moderator
Member since 2017 • 4686 Posts
@uninspiredcup said:
@mandzilla said:

Sajid Javid took the wrong approach on this imo, ignoring international law as well as the Home Office's own guidelines for handling returning ISIS fighters and sympathisers (probably influenced by Trump's comments and UK far-right media).

She's a British citizen and should be held to account for her actions and face justice in a British courtroom. Also, the child has done nothing wrong, so I don't see why it should be left to 'rot' in a refugee camp.

Well, she left for Syria as an act of war. Basically invasion, supporting a proto-state that done horrible unfathomable shit. Should be Syria dealing with her.

Sajid Javid probably is trying to save-face, he's generally seen as a soft-touch. Regardless of the Mirror etc.. I honestly couldn't give a shit, I sure as hell don't want her back here nor my tax money paying for her.

We can say "oh she was just brainwashed". Well, so was the lad in the Manchester bombing. So were the fellows who shot up France and drove trucks killing hundreds of people. I wouldn't want to pay tax to help them either, rather it went to the victims or preventing it from happening in the future than a mop up job for those already indoctrinated.

I don't believe that Syria are currently in a position to handle these matters, with the civil war still raging on. I get what you're saying about the criminality of her actions, certainly not trying to downplay or condonne what she's done. However, I stand by my initial post. She has British citizenship, was radicalised here and should be brought back to the UK to face trial. What's the point in even having an extradition process if you're just going to turn a blind eye to justice.

Sajid Javid has been roundly criticised for his misguided approach, and rightfully so. Rather than adhering to the obligations of international law, he's instead taken this populist driven (and likely motivated by personal political ambitions) decision to strip her citizenship. That makes no sense from a national security perspective, and is just a lazy solution honestly. If Shamima Begum is as unrepentant and supportive of the Manchester bombings as that interview suggests, then how does she pose less of a threat remaining abroad and at large than in British custody.

We all pay tax money here in the UK towards prisons housing criminals, even those people who have been directly affected by the (at times horrific) actions of criminals. The trade off is that justice is served, and those who pose a threat to other's safety are kept locked up for a sentence of time and aren't free to roam around. I suspect many British people would rather see Shamima Begum return and face the consequences of her actions instead of taking an out of sight, out of mind approach.

And again, a child should not be condemned due to the actions of its mother.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
Solaryellow

7035

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 Solaryellow
Member since 2013 • 7035 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

Right call from the UK home secretary

Still, though it´s a 15-year kid so it´s a tough call but only option. The UK can´t have her and her husband and kids roaming free within the UK radicalising others or perhaps taking that last step themselves.

The safety and welfare of the state makes the decision easy.

Anyone who would want these people admitted into "insert name here" after being radicalized must have a screw loose. Sadly enough people will advocate on her behalf for her return to the UK just like here in the states with the other beauty who thinks she should be allowed back in.

Avatar image for deactivated-5de67c4d9cb12
deactivated-5de67c4d9cb12

392

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#40 deactivated-5de67c4d9cb12
Member since 2019 • 392 Posts
@mandzilla said:
@uninspiredcup said:
@mandzilla said:

Sajid Javid took the wrong approach on this imo, ignoring international law as well as the Home Office's own guidelines for handling returning ISIS fighters and sympathisers (probably influenced by Trump's comments and UK far-right media).

She's a British citizen and should be held to account for her actions and face justice in a British courtroom. Also, the child has done nothing wrong, so I don't see why it should be left to 'rot' in a refugee camp.

Well, she left for Syria as an act of war. Basically invasion, supporting a proto-state that done horrible unfathomable shit. Should be Syria dealing with her.

Sajid Javid probably is trying to save-face, he's generally seen as a soft-touch. Regardless of the Mirror etc.. I honestly couldn't give a shit, I sure as hell don't want her back here nor my tax money paying for her.

We can say "oh she was just brainwashed". Well, so was the lad in the Manchester bombing. So were the fellows who shot up France and drove trucks killing hundreds of people. I wouldn't want to pay tax to help them either, rather it went to the victims or preventing it from happening in the future than a mop up job for those already indoctrinated.

I don't believe that Syria are currently in a position to handle these matters, with the civil war still raging on. I get what you're saying about the criminality of her actions, certainly not trying to downplay or condonne what she's done. However, I stand by my initial post. She has British citizenship, was radicalised here and should be brought back to the UK to face trial. What's the point in even having an extradition process if you're just going to turn a blind eye to justice.

Sajid Javid has been roundly criticised for his misguided approach, and rightfully so. Rather than adhering to the obligations of international law, he's instead taken this populist driven (and likely motivated by personal political ambitions) decision to strip her citizenship. That makes no sense from a national security perspective, and is just a lazy solution honestly. If Shamima Begum is as unrepentant and supportive of the Manchester bombings as that interview suggests, then how does she pose less of a threat remaining abroad and at large than in British custody.

We all pay tax money here in the UK towards prisons housing criminals, even those people who have been directly affected by the (at times horrific) actions of criminals. The trade off is that justice is served, and those who pose a threat to other's safety are kept locked up for a sentence of time and aren't free to roam around. I suspect many British people would rather see Shamima Begum return and face the consequences of her actions instead of taking an out of sight, out of mind approach.

And again, a child should not be condemned due to the actions of its mother.

Well said.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36047

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36047 Posts

Gee, I wonder what the right to life crowd thinks about helping a young child and young mother get a second chance. /s

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
nintendoboy16

41577

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 43

User Lists: 14

#42 nintendoboy16
Member since 2007 • 41577 Posts

Take the kid. Lock up the mom. THESE are the kind of people that should lose their right to parent, not migrants looking for a better life (*cough*TrumpsAmerica*cough*).

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

16606

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 blaznwiipspman1
Member since 2007 • 16606 Posts

@mandzilla: disagree. Exile is a great outcome. No point in paying $100k an year to house criminals like these when an exile would be a far better outcome. I would think that exile is probably a better outcome than prison in a majority of cases, when it's a serious crime and there's undeniable proof.

Avatar image for mandzilla
mandzilla

4686

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#44 mandzilla  Moderator
Member since 2017 • 4686 Posts

@blaznwiipspman1: Well I can see your point of view and a lot of people here in the UK no doubt share that sentiment, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts

I thought Republicans were against infanticide!

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36047

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36047 Posts

@zaryia said:

I thought Republicans were against infanticide!

The pro-birth movement doesn't really want to help anyone in life.

Avatar image for Jag85
Jag85

19681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 219

User Lists: 0

#47  Edited By Jag85
Member since 2005 • 19681 Posts

@mandzilla: Agreed. These are the most sensible posts on this topic. To add:

No child should bear the guilt of the mother. It should be a priority to bring the child back to safety, regardless of what happens to the mother.

There is no reason why other countries like Syria or Bangladesh should have to bear the burden of a British extremist. Syria doesn't have the resources to hold a trial, and Syria is not a dumping ground for British extremists. And Bangladesh has been complaining for years about Britain exporting extremists to Bangladesh, and so the government has rightfully denied entry to yet another British extremist. Britain needs to take responsibility for its own extremists, instead of trying to push its own problems onto other countries.

And finally, it's better to have her behind bars rather than out free in the open. She should be put on trial in the UK, and kept behind bars if found guilty, rather than be a potential threat as a free person out in the open. She should ideally be kept under surveillance, to prevent a potential security hazard, not to mention the Intel that can be gathered from interrogations.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#48 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

@zaryia said:

I thought Republicans were against infanticide!

1. Only within US territory's jurisdiction.

2. Shamima Begum's new baby is alive.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#49  Edited By ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

@Serraph105 said:
@zaryia said:

I thought Republicans were against infanticide!

The pro-birth movement doesn't really want to help anyone in life.

Obama administration tried to kill Australia's and New Zealand's single payer hybrid systems during TPP negotiations.

http://theconversation.com/why-biologics-were-such-a-big-deal-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-48595

To reduce universal health's cost, Australia has single out US "data-exclusivity-medications" condition as the killer to their universal health care system.

Hypocrisy from the Democrats.

CANZUK (AUS+CAN+NZ+UK) system beating US system (last)

https://interactives.commonwealthfund.org/2017/july/mirror-mirror/

Australia has a hybrid model with single player universal health care and private system, backed by patent reforms that promotes open competition i.e. nanny state enforced capitalism, the "3rd way".

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#50 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

@Jacanuk said:
@volsung said:

Are there no clear laws already on the books regarding this?

Regarding what? removing a person's citizenship? Because the problem is not that the UK can´t legally remove a British citizens passport as long as the person has dual citizenship.

So the problem is that the UK has ratified an international treaty that makes it illegal to make anyone stateless. Which they technically have done.

So Bangladesh law now plays a role, does she automatically get citizenship because of her parents or is the law that she merely has a right to apply for citizenship.

https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/415c3cfb4.pdf

A non-binding recommendation was included in the Final Act concerning de facto stateless persons

1954 Convention's Final Act is non-binding.