ISIS teenager wants to come home

[RolandRat]

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.

As I said above, i think she would have been exposed to the horrors the group she joined have been doing long before she joined them. You can't tell me she wasn't aware they were cutting peoples heads off and whatnot.

 

[Minoosh]

What's wrong with recognizing she's a British citizen and sending her to prison for life? How secure is it to leave her in a camp she may somehow get out of?

 

[theprestige]

It's funny, but the vehement extremity of RolandRat's position, and the rebuttals to it about teenagers and grooming/propaganda, have made me seriously reconsider my own position. I am now tending towards the idea that she should probably be brought home as a UK citizen, and dealt with as a UK citizen.

On other hand, if her circumstances had been slightly different - if she'd been a few years older and a more plausible case for adult responsibility could be made - I'd not give two figs for her being made stateless, or for the UK government disingenuously turning this into a Bangladeshi citizenship problem and washing their hands.

So in this particular case, yeah, the UK probably owes it to her to recognize her citizenship and persecute/support her accordingly.

But in general, folks who leave home to join a nascent terrorist state lose all claim to the privileges of citizenship in the country they declared war on, as far as I'm concerned. If that means you get to be a stateless hobo in a refugee camp in one of the world's pestholes? Fine by me. Get rekt, terrorist scum.

 

[Planigale]

It's funny, but the vehement extremity of RolandRat's position, and the rebuttals to it about teenagers and grooming/propaganda, have made me seriously reconsider my own position. I am now tending towards the idea that she should probably be brought home as a UK citizen, and dealt with as a UK citizen.

On other hand, if her circumstances had been slightly different - if she'd been a few years older and a more plausible case for adult responsibility could be made - I'd not give two figs for her being made stateless, or for the UK government disingenuously turning this into a Bangladeshi citizenship problem and washing their hands.

So in this particular case, yeah, the UK probably owes it to her to recognize her citizenship and persecute/support her accordingly.

But in general, folks who leave home to join a nascent terrorist state lose all claim to the privileges of citizenship in the country they declared war on, as far as I'm concerned. If that means you get to be a stateless hobo in a refugee camp in one of the world's pestholes? Fine by me. Get rekt, terrorist scum.

In principle I agree with you.

I think you should reap what you sow. Adults over 18 have to take responsibility for their criminal acts. But there is a reason why we have 'children's courts', why children under 18 do not vote, and are not allowed to go on active service if they are in the army. I suspect that she would not have been the most worldly wise 15 year old and the grooming would have begun early in her teen age years. I would not be unhappy with British citizens who swore allegiance to ISIS being prosecuted for treason, without needing to prove participation in any specific criminal act.

 

[rockinkt]

As I said above, i think she would have been exposed to the horrors the group she joined have been doing long before she joined them. You can't tell me she wasn't aware they were cutting peoples heads off and whatnot.

You're arguing against people who are bending over backwards not to mention the role the orthodox teachings of a small but very active sect of Muslim religious hardliners had in this.
No doubt she was heavily influenced by an Imam and possibly even some of her family members were involved as well.
This was pure unadulterated religious indoctrination in Muslim Salafi jihadism.

 

[Vixen]

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.

That is why she needs to be brought before a court for a hearing (Magna Carta and all that?).

 

[Vixen]

You're arguing against people who are bending over backwards not to mention the role the orthodox teachings of a small but very active sect of Muslim religious hardliners had in this.
No doubt she was heavily influenced by an Imam and possibly even some of her family members were involved as well.
This was pure unadulterated religious indoctrination in Muslim Salafi jihadism.

I don't see how being anti-Muslim is relevant. Criminality has nothing to do with one's nationality. If that was the case, then by your argument we need to revoke the nationality of Rose West, Jeremy Bamber and Ian Huntley.

If Begum is found by a court to have breached the law regarding Anti-Terrorist Acts then bring the correct charge and sentence against her. Or lobby your MP to change the law.

 

[Darat]

You're arguing against people who are bending over backwards not to mention the role the orthodox teachings of a small but very active sect of Muslim religious hardliners had in this.
No doubt she was heavily influenced by an Imam and possibly even some of her family members were involved as well.
This was pure unadulterated religious indoctrination in Muslim Salafi jihadism.

Yeah that's all part of the grooming. Who says it isn't (of those arguing against Rats argument)?

 

[rockinkt]

I don't see how being anti-Muslim is relevant.

Neither do I. What is your point and who is being anti-Muslim?

Criminality has nothing to do with one's nationality.

I agree. Who said anything about criminality and being tied to one's nationality?

If that was the case, then by your argument we need to revoke the nationality of Rose West, Jeremy Bamber and Ian Huntley.

It is not the case. Your characterization of my argument is astonishingly erroneous.

 

[rockinkt]

Yeah that's all part of the grooming. Who says it isn't (of those arguing against Rats argument)?

You and others have made the jump to conflating religious indoctrination to "grooming for sexual purposes" without a shred of evidence.
You are purposefully leaving out the religious indoctrination in order to go along with your views that any sort of mention of Islamic teachings as a motivating factor for terrorism is automatically being racist and anti-Islam.

 

[Darat]

You and others have made the jump to conflating religious indoctrination to "grooming for sexual purposes" without a shred of evidence. ...snip...

No I haven’t.

You are purposefully leaving out the religious indoctrination in order to go along with your views that any sort of mention of Islamic teachings as a motivating factor for terrorism is automatically being racist and anti-Islam.

Nope not at all.

No idea who you are confusing me with.

Looks like you can’t support your claim.

 

[theprestige]

You and others have made the jump to conflating religious indoctrination to "grooming for sexual purposes" without a shred of evidence.
You are purposefully leaving out the religious indoctrination in order to go along with your views that any sort of mention of Islamic teachings as a motivating factor for terrorism is automatically being racist and anti-Islam.

The way I see it, it's the same thing whether you call it indoctrination or grooming. And it's not for sexual purposes, but for general compliance and suggestibility of the believers. Obviously this creates a target-rich environment for sex predators, and it's no surprise that sex predators are often found among religious leadership, applying and guiding the indoctrination process for their own ends.

 

[Vixen]

Neither do I. What is your point and who is being anti-Muslim?



I agree. Who said anything about criminality and being tied to one's nationality?




It is not the case. Your characterization of my argument is astonishingly erroneous.

You or another poster were arguing that the fact of her illegally leaving the UK to join an illegal regime was enough to strip her of her nationality without further ado or appeal.

Do correct me if I have got this wrong.

 

[Vixen]

You and others have made the jump to conflating religious indoctrination to "grooming for sexual purposes" without a shred of evidence.
You are purposefully leaving out the religious indoctrination in order to go along with your views that any sort of mention of Islamic teachings as a motivating factor for terrorism is automatically being racist and anti-Islam.

ISTM the main argument against letting Begum return to argue before a hearing about why she should not lose her British nationality appears to be based on anti-Muslim terrorist attitudes rather than focussing on the cold technical issue of her nationality.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Your counter argument appears to be, 'you must be pro-Muslim terrorists/politically correct if you want her to have that right'.

However, that is what a forum is for, you may correct any misunderstanding about this.

 

[Vixen]

The way I see it, it's the same thing whether you call it indoctrination or grooming. And it's not for sexual purposes, but for general compliance and suggestibility of the believers. Obviously this creates a target-rich environment for sex predators, and it's no surprise that sex predators are often found among religious leadership, applying and guiding the indoctrination process for their own ends.

That's right. Many of these 'recruits' seem to have been 'married' off almost as soon as they arrived.

 

[Vixen]

Big news day today, re Shamima Begum's attempt to have her appeal heard in person.

Shamima Begum will find out if she can potentially return to the UK to pursue an appeal against the removal of her British citizenship when the Supreme Court rules on her case.

Begum was 15 when she and two other east London schoolgirls travelled to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State group (IS) in February 2015.

Her British citizenship was revoked on national security grounds shortly after she was found, nine months pregnant, in a Syrian refugee camp in February 2019.

Begum, now 21, is challenging the Home Office's decision to remove her British citizenship and wants to be allowed to return to the UK to pursue her appeal.

DM

Being heard today.

 

[ohms]

Supreme Court says no, she cannot return to the UK to have her appeal heard:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56209007

 

[Vixen]

Supreme Court says no, she cannot return to the UK to have her appeal heard:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56209007

A defective decision, based on the erroneous reasoning, 'It's been brought by the Home Secretary, so he or she, as Home Secretary, should know', completely overriding the fact that the Courts are supposed to concentrate objectively and coldly on the law and the constitution and not on the political forces of the day. It is circular reasoning: "The Home Office stripped Begum of her British citizenship and we should respect that decision. It is their decision she is a national security risk and they should know as they communicate with the Intelligence Services. We know this is a weak argument, which presupposes the Home Office has no political bias, so we have hastily carried out our own security assessment and agree with the Home Secretary for the aforementioned reasons. If people don't like it, they can always vote the government out.'

In no shape or form has the government-appointed special IAS board and the Supreme Court, headed by Lord Reed, actually coldly applied the law and the concept of habeus corpus. As if a 21-year-old woman imprisoned over the last four or five years has any means whatsoever to 'pose a risk to the public', given she would be met off the plane by the police ready to arrest her.

This is the first step in the slippery slope of a rogue government which cares little for ethics or human rights, least of all actually honouring laws and treaties, or parliamentary protocols - as per the illegal proroguing the other year - not to mention the current incumbent Home Secretary having been caught red-handed trying to make a deal with Israel behind the then government's back, was unceremoniously sacked for it and then was also found guilty of bullying by a ministerial Conduct Committee more recently, and least of all, being Hindi and therefore in conflict of interest with an Islam issue.

Lord Reed in this shabby judgment, is shown up as cowardly and weak, simply doing the populists' bidding, instead of concentrating on the finer points of the law.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think the UK is being gratuitously shady here.

 

[Garrison]

A defective decision, based on the erroneous reasoning, 'It's been brought by the Home Secretary, so he or she, as Home Secretary, should know', completely overriding the fact that the Courts are supposed to concentrate objectively and coldly on the law and the constitution and not on the political forces of the day. It is circular reasoning: "The Home Office stripped Begum of her British citizenship and we should respect that decision. It is their decision she is a national security risk and they should know as they communicate with the Intelligence Services. We know this is a weak argument, which presupposes the Home Office has no political bias, so we have hastily carried out our own security assessment and agree with the Home Secretary for the aforementioned reasons. If people don't like it, they can always vote the government out.'

In no shape or form has the government-appointed special IAS board and the Supreme Court, headed by Lord Reed, actually coldly applied the law and the concept of habeus corpus. As if a 21-year-old woman imprisoned over the last four or five years has any means whatsoever to 'pose a risk to the public', given she would be met off the plane by the police ready to arrest her.

This is the first step in the slippery slope of a rogue government which cares little for ethics or human rights, least of all actually honouring laws and treaties, or parliamentary protocols - as per the illegal proroguing the other year - not to mention the current incumbent Home Secretary having been caught red-handed trying to make a deal with Israel behind the then government's back, was unceremoniously sacked for it and then was also found guilty of bullying by a ministerial Conduct Committee more recently, and least of all, being Hindi and therefore in conflict of interest with an Islam issue.

Lord Reed in this shabby judgment, is shown up as cowardly and weak, simply doing the populists' bidding, instead of concentrating on the finer points of the law.

The courts have decided its up to this terrorist wannabe to prove she would no longer pose a threat if she came back to the UK and not that she simply decided to invoke her UK citizenship once ISIS started losing. I've seen nothing that convinces me she has any genuine remorse for what she did and frankly I would be far more sympathetic to allowing genuine victims of ISIS to come to this country, for that matter I would have no issue with allowing her children to be brought to the UK.