• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ISIS teenager wants to come home

bluesjnr said:
Let's just ignore her, on the record, statements about not regretting her decision to join ISIL. Or that she had been unfazed by seeing the head of a beheaded man as he was "an enemy of Islam". I'd take that into consideration when forming my views before going right to, "she's a victim".

I'd also consider the fact that she said she was "inspired" (her words) to join ISIL by videos of fighters beheading hostages and also of "the good life" under the group.

I have no compunction about letting the little scrote wither and die well away from theses shores. **** her.

But then again, you didn't ask me.
Click to expand...

PursuedByABear said:
Does she need help? Has she asked for help? What makes you think her parents can't afford the air fare? Or Liberty, who are paying orders of magnitude more to fund the court case? Never in this case has the idea of her needing government help to return been a factor. It has been about the removal of her citizenship.
Click to expand...

I find myself on the fence about this, she was definitely a child when she made her initial decisions and since then she has lived in what I would hope we would all agree is a "society" that was dysfunctional, controlling and coercive. Never mind the whole "Stockholm syndrome" side of it.

That's why I recast it as a child who had been being groomed for the sex trade. In that case I suspect for most of us even if she was now saying it was fine, she liked it, it wasn't abusive we'd consider her to be have been brainwashed and needing of help.

Yes she is now an adult but we know for someone subjected to grooming and abuse when they were a child it doesn't end when they turn 18.
 
Darat said:
I find myself on the fence about this, she was definitely a child when she made her initial decisions and since then she has lived in what I would hope we would all agree is a "society" that was dysfunctional, controlling and coercive. Never mind the whole "Stockholm syndrome" side of it.

That's why I recast it as a child who had been being groomed for the sex trade. In that case I suspect for most of us even if she was now saying it was fine, she liked it, it wasn't abusive we'd consider her to be have been brainwashed and needing of help.

Yes she is now an adult but we know for someone subjected to grooming and abuse when they were a child it doesn't end when they turn 18.
Click to expand...

Why have you quoted me then made no response to my post? All you have said is irrelevant to my point.

Is she, or anyone associated with her, even asking the government to "bring her home"? As far as I know, they are not. The government do not just bring anyone home for the asking, and there is no reason to believe that her friends and family are not perfectly capable of bringing her home now that the legal obstacles have been lifted, which is why the government are not, and should not, be involved, certainly at this point.

If someone says that she is in danger and they cannot get her home, then maybe there is a conversation to be had. But nobody has said any such thing.
 
Last edited:
What should the government do to bring her home? Buy her a plane ticket? Send an armed escort? Kidnap her? Hire a babysitter? Seems to me that at this point she's in the same position as every other British citizen who is currenty abroad and has an interest in conducting legal or business affairs back home.

I'm satisfied that the government has discharged its entire obligation by reviewing the matter in court and issuing a judgement. As long as they uphold that judgement when she applies for an entry visa and passes through border controls, that takes care of that.

I should think that to whatever degree there's a list of citizens the government has an interest in proactively repatriating, she is not and should not be on it.
 
There are three circumstances I can think of off the top of my head when the government arranges transport/brings civilians home (on military or commercial transport).

When they are being arrested and brought home for trial, when they have been caught up in a disaster/crime/terrorism etc, or when external events make arranging their own return impossible. Arguably one or more of these could apply.
 
PursuedByABear said:
Why have you quoted me then made no response to my post? All you have said is irrelevant to my point.
Is she, or anyone associated with her, even asking the government to "bring her home"? As far as I know, they are not. The government do not just bring anyone home for the asking, and there is no reason to believe that her friends and family are not perfectly capable of bringing her home now that the legal obstacles have been lifted, which is why the government are not, and should not, be involved, certainly at this point.

If someone says that she is in danger and they cannot get her home, then maybe there is a conversation to be had. But nobody has said any such thing.
Click to expand...

Sorry didn't realise I'd quoted your post.

And I agree with you regarding funding to get back to the UK, but there is a wrinkle about that, the government are trying to take an action that is very difficult for her to deal with whilst in the camp, access to legal representatives and so on.
 
So now the British government are taking it to the Supreme Court, so Begum can't return until that is decided.

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.
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53607595

In addition, there is the issue of the original draft judgment having been leaked to the SUN newspaper.

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".
Click to expand...
ibid

ISTM the Begum lawyers have a stronger point of law than that of the Home Office, who are citing 'in the public interest'.

Compare and contrast the UK attitude to that of Finland. Yesterday a mother and her children - two under the age of ten - landed back in Helsinki yesterday after an agreement with Turkey/Ankara officials to let her return. There is video footage of the plane landing here:

A family who had previously been to the Al-Hol camp in Syria, including a mother and children under the age of 10, have returned to Finland from Turkey. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs announced this in a press release published today. So far, four women and at least eleven laws have returned to Finland from the camp. In June, 12 people, three women and nine children returned to Finland. The children were all under 10 years of age.
Click to expand...
https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/2eb06d74-2054-42f4-8ac1-9429b734c2fd

The Foreign Minister is quoted as saying that anyone with Finnish nationality has a constitutional right to return to Finland. I think her children may have been taken off her when she arrived. However, privacy laws are so strict here, she has not been named and nor has it been revealed whereabouts she is headed.

The UK Home Office appealing to the emotion of 'going abroad and aligning with terrorist groups' is poor as it leaves Begum stateless and one can't just chuck our criminals at other countries to deal with. She was radicalised here.

Re the sex trafficking of a minor analogy. Suppose she had been a 15-year-old groomed into sex trafficking rings. Of course, such individuals are going to show highly sexualised behaviour, uncomfortable as it might seem in very young children. Should the fact YOU feel uncomfortable about their inappropraite behaviour, speech and the sexualised way they pose for a photograph mean that their having been groomed underage is all their own fault and there is no redemption or rehabilitation? Especially if the grooming happened in the UK under the noses of teachers and parents?

Who should deal with them?
 
Who should deal with what?

The question of law is not about what Begum may or may not be. The simple fact is that she is British, she has never been to Bangladesh, and even is she is the most evil murderer the world has ever seen, you can't strip the nationality from a citizen who is clearly your responsibility and expect some completely uninvolved state to deal with them because of a legal loophole that means they might be able to claim citizenship there based on their ancestry.

What should happen to Begum once this is sorted out and if she then chooses to return is quite another question. Which one are you concerned with?
 
PursuedByABear said:
Who should deal with what?

The question of law is not about what Begum may or may not be. The simple fact is that she is British, she has never been to Bangladesh, and even is she is the most evil murderer the world has ever seen, you can't strip the nationality from a citizen who is clearly your responsibility and expect some completely uninvolved state to deal with them because of a legal loophole that means they might be able to claim citizenship there based on their ancestry.

What should happen to Begum once this is sorted out and if she then chooses to return is quite another question. Which one are you concerned with?
Click to expand...

Begum should be executed.
 
Vixen said:
So now the British government are taking it to the Supreme Court, so Begum can't return until that is decided.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53607595
Click to expand...



You should maybe read your supporting quotes a little more carefully. The BBC article you've quoted says this:

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

In other words, this article is clearly stating that it's the Court of Appeal which has decided that this case has to go up to the Supreme Court (because of its constitutional importance). Not the British Government.
 
PursuedByABear said:
Who should deal with what?

The question of law is not about what Begum may or may not be. The simple fact is that she is British, she has never been to Bangladesh, and even is she is the most evil murderer the world has ever seen, you can't strip the nationality from a citizen who is clearly your responsibility and expect some completely uninvolved state to deal with them because of a legal loophole that means they might be able to claim citizenship there based on their ancestry.

What should happen to Begum once this is sorted out and if she then chooses to return is quite another question. Which one are you concerned with?
Click to expand...
Bangladesh isn't uninvolved, though. Their citizenship laws give her a rightful claim on their support. They can't just say that they grant citizenship to all kinds of people and then complain when all kinds of people are included in that grant.
 
PS: Plenty of posts within this thread appear to show a fundamental lack of understanding of the current situation.

The current court cases are NOT about whether or not Begum should be allowed to return home to live in the UK and/or retain her British citizenship. Rather, they are solely about the much narrower issue of whether or not Begum should be allowed to travel back to the UK in order to appeal the revocation of her British citizenship and attendant banning from the UK.

Therefore, if the Supreme Court rules in Begum's favour on this narrow issue (and I'd guess that it will indeed rule in her favour), then all this will do is allow her to return to the UK to appeal on the core issue of her citizenship revocation and banning. Only if she wins THAT appeal will her British citizenship be restored, along with her right to reside in the UK of course. But if she comes back to fight that appeal and loses, then her ban and revocation will stand.
 
theprestige said:
Bangladesh isn't uninvolved, though. Their citizenship laws give her a rightful claim on their support. They can't just say that they grant citizenship to all kinds of people and then complain when all kinds of people are included in that grant.
Click to expand...

Of course they are uninvolved. They have never laid eyes on her, she has never laid eyes on them. Her actions, whatever they are, have never had any connection or reference to Bangladesh.
Can you tell me in detail the justification you would use for the UK saying "This person is not our problem, she is yours" to Bangladesh?

The end result of that would of course be that any criminal could be foisted off onto the last country that realised they might be able to claim citizenship there, as they would not be aware they had to revoke citizenship rights from someone they had never heard of in any capacity, many many miles away from them. Why do you think that is a good idea?

What do you propose to do with the plane loads of Bangladeshi rapists and murderers with grandparents from your country when Bangladesh starts sending them over?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Bangladesh isn't uninvolved, though. Their citizenship laws give her a rightful claim on their support. They can't just say that they grant citizenship to all kinds of people and then complain when all kinds of people are included in that grant.
Click to expand...

Of course they can, why do you think they can't?
 
LondonJohn said:
You should maybe read your supporting quotes a little more carefully. The BBC article you've quoted says this:

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

In other words, this article is clearly stating that it's the Court of Appeal which has decided that this case has to go up to the Supreme Court (because of its constitutional importance). Not the British Government.
Click to expand...

Of coure it is only the High Court that can grant permission to take a case to the Supreme Court. You don't think that just anybody can turn up?

The Home Office (government) is the appellent. There is no confusion there. Begum's counsel have cross-appealed and that stays until Begum is able to appear in person to argue the point as stated in my post, in her own appeal. She won this because a priniciple of law is that you have a right to turn up at your own hearing. The Home Office has appealed against her winning her appeal to challenge the tribunal's verdict and has argued 'public interest'. The High Court has deemed that this is is a grey area of law that is worthy of consideration by a Supreme Court panel of judges, usually between three and five.

Until the Supreme Court hearing is heard Begum is unable to step foot in the UK at all as the issue is stayed until the verdict. The Home Office has taken this step because - hey! - one can appeal any decision by a court, so that is what the Home Office did and 'in the public interest' is a specified point of law on which one can appeal. The High Court granted it but could have refused.

It is clear the Home Office is aware that as soon as Begum sets foot in the UK, they will have to arrest her and charge her. They will then have great difficulty deporting her anywhere as she would be stateless were she to lose her appeal. I doubt they can send her to Bangladesh as the UK has a veto on sending anyone to a country that prescribes a likely death sentence.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Bangladesh isn't uninvolved, though. Their citizenship laws give her a rightful claim on their support. They can't just say that they grant citizenship to all kinds of people and then complain when all kinds of people are included in that grant.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that the provisio is that if you are born of Bangladeshi parents abroad, your parents either have to register you or you have to declare nationality by a specific age, usually eighteen or nineteen. There is of course citizenship by naturalisation but that is a whole different ball game and can take five to ten years or more because of residence requirements.

Begum has never applied for Bangadeshi citizenship and she certainly won't be given it now even if she did apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom