ISIS teenager wants to come home

[Vixen]

The Governments reasoning seems more compelling to me:

"Eadie repeating that the impediments to Ms Begum receiving justice are not the fault of the Home Secretary, but because she went to Syria. They are impediments of her own making. That is relevant, he says.

Points to a number of precedents that recognise that fact.

Eadie: "There is no dispute about the existence of the appeal right, or that the appeal needs to be fair."

The point, he says, is that those "trite" arguments do not answer the current situation. Namely, the consequences for national security of allowing her back into the UK.

Eadie now attacking Pannick's argument that Begum may not pose a threat. He says the authorities had to act on the basis of the information they had.

He refers again to interviews given by Ms Begum, one in which she said the Manchester bomb was justified.

Eadie says the obvious solution for the whole problem is that Shamima Begum could apply for a stay of proceedings until she was in a position to effectively participate in her trial. But she refuses to do so.

The solution is not, he says, to compel the Govt to bring her here."

That is circular reasoning as Pannick and Hickman point out. They can't know the facts of why she went to Syria aged fifteen without hearing her side of the story. That is why people have a right to a hearing.

As for 'refusing to have a stay in hearing', er, she is a captive in a prison camp. She can't 'defer it until she is ready to return' as she is already in danger of being transfered to another camp where she faces the death penalty.

 

[rockinkt]

For me there is a much more important matter of morality and responsibility rather than being "technically correct" in the finessing of the law of either country or both.

If she is suspected of being guilty of a crime then let her be returned here to be prosecuted fairly. Then if she is found to be guilty she can be subjected to the appropriate punishment and rehabilitation. This idea that we can wash our hands of her because "technically she doesn't have to be stateless" is a shirking of our responsibility as a fair and just nation.

She should be returned to Britain and face whatever legal ramifications have resulted from her actions.
While that is happening - the law regarding her citizenship standing in Bangladesh should be ascertained by the British government.
If it is ascertained that under Bangladeshi law she has citizenship in that country; and, if under British law she can be stripped of any right to citizenship in Britain - the law should take its course.

A "fair and just nation" must also protect its citizens from abhorrent and dangerous religious nutjobs.
This woman is proud of her jihadist actions and proud of the death and destruction she aided in or actually caused herself.

Furthermore - religious nutjobs are the most dangerous and the most difficult people to rehabilitate as their firmly held and fundamental beliefs define their very existence in their minds.

No matter how well this woman is coached in prison to appear "reformed" she will never change her views. For crying out loud - the death of her own children under horrible conditions caused directly by her own actions in the cause of jihad has not altered her fanatical religious views!
Think of that for a moment. The most basic and compelling instincts of a woman are for her children. The fact that she could accept the terrible deaths of those children in order to follow her higher goal of advancing her religious goals is incredibly chilling.

 

[RolandRat]

That is circular reasoning as Pannick and Hickman point out. They can't know the facts of why she went to Syria aged fifteen without hearing her side of the story. That is why people have a right to a hearing.

As for 'refusing to have a stay in hearing', er, she is a captive in a prison camp. She can't 'defer it until she is ready to return' as she is already in danger of being transfered to another camp where she faces the death penalty.

Didn't she give an interview where she gave her reasons for going to Syria?

 

[RolandRat]

She should be returned to Britain

The problem with that is once she is back in the country, I think that's game over. If Bangladesh refuse to take her, we can't kick her back out.

 

[bluesjnr]

That is circular reasoning as Pannick and Hickman point out. They can't know the facts of why she went to Syria aged fifteen without hearing her side of the story. That is why people have a right to a hearing.

As for 'refusing to have a stay in hearing', er, she is a captive in a prison camp. She can't 'defer it until she is ready to return' as she is already in danger of being transfered to another camp where she faces the death penalty.

Hope springs eternal

 

[Tolls]

The problem with that is once she is back in the country, I think that's game over. If Bangladesh refuse to take her, we can't kick her back out.

And?
There are lots of people we can't kick out of the country.

 

[Vixen]

SEX!!!!

Didn't she give an interview where she gave her reasons for going to Syria?

She gave an interview to a tv journalist for a major UK broadcasting channel. As you know, journalists try to get a story that captures the public's attention (as per my headline above). Whatever Begum said to him in their conversation would have been heavily edited to encapsulate the sensationalist bits.

With Begum there is a genuine case to be made out that she is a victim of the 'Stockholm Syndrome' , so called because people being kept hostage began to empathise with their captors and even began to share the hostage-takers' view of the world. This was a surprise to the negotiators and criminal psychologists, hence the syndrome was studied further and given a name. It could be a survival mechanism. For example, women who put up with violent cruel husbands because they have no money and nowhere else to go, as a crude example.

A famous example is that of heiress Patsy Hearst who engaged in a bank robbery - caught on the bank's cctv - with a political Synbionic Movement (_sp?_) gang. When she was arrested she claimed Stockholm Syndrome - she had been held hostage and had begun to believe the group's political aims so voluntarily joined in their illegal activities.

So yes, it is important that Begum is given the opportunity to explain herself in her own words and be cross-examined so that the court can properly assess whether she is truly evil, as she has been painted in the press or some silly impressionable schoolgirl at the time groomed by internet predators.

 

[RolandRat]

With Begum there is a genuine case to be made out that she is a victim of the 'Stockholm Syndrome' , so called because people being kept hostage began to empathise with their captors and even began to share the hostage-takers' view of the world.

How many people suffering from Stockholms looked up their "captors" thought I'd like some of that and then went willingly off to join them?

You can't tell me she didn't know about their ideology before she willingly left the country.

 

[RolandRat]

And?
There are lots of people we can't kick out of the country.

I'd rather not let an unrepentant terrorist back into the country if it can be helped.

 

[Darat]

The problem with that is once she is back in the country, I think that's game over. If Bangladesh refuse to take her, we can't kick her back out.

In my view that is at it should be. Everyone who is being honest and candid has to say that the Bangladesh citizenship is a bad faith argument. According to the UK and Bangladesh governments she has never been a Bangladesh citizen. And the UK can no more make her a Bangladesh citizen against the will of the Bangladesh state than Bangladesh could make someone a UK citizen against the will of the UK state.

We simply don't want her here and want to wash our hands of her.

She left the UK as a minor, one that could not order a drink in a pub, learn to drive and so on, yet we are in effect saying she was responsible and mature enough to give up her UK citizenship.

To put it in dramatic terms: She is a failure of the UK to protect our children. She should be treated the same way as any other UK citizen that we believe have committed criminal acts.

 

[RolandRat]

We simply don't want her here and want to wash our hands of her.

Absolutely. She made her unrepentant bed, she can now lie in it as far as I'm concerned. I hope the courts see it the same way.

 

[Planigale]

In my view that is at it should be. Everyone who is being honest and candid has to say that the Bangladesh citizenship is a bad faith argument. According to the UK and Bangladesh governments she has never been a Bangladesh citizen. And the UK can no more make her a Bangladesh citizen against the will of the Bangladesh state than Bangladesh could make someone a UK citizen against the will of the UK state.

We simply don't want her here and want to wash our hands of her.

She left the UK as a minor, one that could not order a drink in a pub, learn to drive and so on, yet we are in effect saying she was responsible and mature enough to give up her UK citizenship.

To put it in dramatic terms: She is a failure of the UK to protect our children. She should be treated the same way as any other UK citizen that we believe have committed criminal acts.

She was a victim of on-line grooming, she was trafficked out of the UK for sex. The UK failed in its duty to protect her. We know there are many teenagers groomed and recruited for sex in the UK. Normally one prosecutes the groomers and not the teen age victims.

 

[theprestige]

She may also be constrained from giving a full-throated renunciation while she remains in the refugee camp. I imagine whoever is running the camp can't possibly guarantee her safety against retaliation if she makes a convincing idictment of ISIS.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I can only speak for myself, but the bolded words are the driver for me. I don't care about the ideology or (dual) ethnicity of the perpetrator.

It's the same for me, and why I will always hate the French.

 

[RolandRat]

She was a victim of on-line grooming, she was trafficked out of the UK for sex. The UK failed in its duty to protect her. We know there are many teenagers groomed and recruited for sex in the UK. Normally one prosecutes the groomers and not the teen age victims.

Victim my arse. If a sex trafficking "victim" had looked up the traffickers, decided that looks good, went out to join the traffickers and helped them traffic other girls whilst giving interviews stating the girls deserve what they get. Then when the police raided the traffickers, the "victim" started complaining she wasn't being housed in a hostel filled with real victims of trafficking I doubt many people would have sympathy for her.

 

[Tolls]

She may also be constrained from giving a full-throated renunciation while she remains in the refugee camp. I imagine whoever is running the camp can't possibly guarantee her safety against retaliation if she makes a convincing idictment of ISIS.

Quite.
The camp she's in (al-Hawl?) is pretty full of nutters.

 

[Planigale]

Victim my arse. If a sex trafficking "victim" had looked up the traffickers, decided that looks good, went out to join the traffickers and helped them traffic other girls whilst giving interviews stating the girls deserve what they get. Then when the police raided the traffickers, the "victim" started complaining she wasn't being housed in a hostel filled with real victims of trafficking I doubt many people would have sympathy for her.

I don't think you understand that that is how grooming works.

 

[Darat]

Victim my arse. If a sex trafficking "victim" had looked up the traffickers, decided that looks good, went out to join the traffickers and helped them traffic other girls whilst giving interviews stating the girls deserve what they get. Then when the police raided the traffickers, the "victim" started complaining she wasn't being housed in a hostel filled with real victims of trafficking I doubt many people would have sympathy for her.

I'm with Planigale, you seem quite unaware of how all grooming works and how children are targeted. Or do we say that because she was 15 she wasn't a child? Or somehow she should have been different to other victims?

It is a very sad fact that many victims of grooming, trafficking and the like are - and the only word to describe it is - brainwashed, they will often claim not to be victims.

 

[RolandRat]

I'm with Planigale, you seem quite unaware of how all grooming works and how children are targeted. Or do we say that because she was 15 she wasn't a child? Or somehow she should have been different to other victims?

It is a very sad fact that many victims of grooming, trafficking and the like are - and the only word to describe it is - brainwashed, they will often claim not to be victims.

Yes I'm sure grooming groups have their members splash their misdeeds all over the internet with their names next to said deeds.

 

[Darat]

Yes I'm sure grooming groups have their members splash their misdeeds all over the internet with their names next to said deeds.

This was a child who was groomed online, she was a child we in the UK did not protect from online predators yet you seem to think that she was able to rationally weigh up all her options and was able to in effect give informed consent to what she was subjected to.

I cannot see how anyone can consider her to not be a victim of child grooming.