• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

ISIS teenager wants to come home

In 2022 The Guardian reported, "British sources, however, said they believed there was no suggestion that Begum travelled involuntarily to Syria, despite her young age. Officials believe she aligned herself with IS by remaining with the group in Syria and Iraq past the age of 18, and that she posed a security risk to the UK." Inasmuch as she was 15, I don't follow this logic. Governments restrict behavior of young people in many ways. They do so on the principle that one has to be mature enough to make an informed choice (or at least that is my understanding).

Problem is, this case was heard in camera in a closed court. Not even Begum's defence lawyers were allowed to know the details of the case against her.

There was a journalist who befriended her for about a year at the Syrian camp (=good story for him). Then he turned on her and said she had only dressed in a trendy 'western' way to try to influence opinion. So maybe he is the 'intelligence' behind the claim she is a security risk.
 
The thing is she has to exhaust domestic remedies before going to ECHR. So she will go to ECHR next, this will be prioritised because it has broad application for many children taken to Iraq, and abandoned by European governments.
 
Doubt they will take it, our courts already take the treaty into account in these types of decisions.

The thing is though, rendering a person stateless like the UK has done breaks a whol load of international laws.

Just because the UK doesn't want to remain within the rule of law on this issue, it does not follow that the relevant international courts are going to just shrug their shoulders.
 
There was a journalist who befriended her for about a year at the Syrian camp (=good story for him). Then he turned on her and said she had only dressed in a trendy 'western' way to try to influence opinion. So maybe he is the 'intelligence' behind the claim she is a security risk.

Or maybe the journalist was being honest.
 
The thing is though, rendering a person stateless like the UK has done breaks a whol load of international laws.

Just because the UK doesn't want to remain within the rule of law on this issue, it does not follow that the relevant international courts are going to just shrug their shoulders.

It breaks no laws, this point has been discussed to death.
 
"All the other countries have decided that you have to let a known enemy of your country back in your borders" presented as a logical and moral high ground is one of those "go outside, touch grass" moments of "You're too deep in the weeds to see the point."
 
The thing is she has to exhaust domestic remedies before going to ECHR. So she will go to ECHR next, this will be prioritised because it has broad application for many children taken to Iraq, and abandoned by European governments.

I don't think they will take it.
 
"All the other countries have decided that you have to let a known enemy of your country back in your borders" presented as a logical and moral high ground is one of those "go outside, touch grass" moments of "You're too deep in the weeds to see the point."

The argument is not that in the slightest, and that's not the argument that's been used in court by either side.
 
Makes perfect sense that a body elected by all citizens should have the final word on creation or abolition of a law. This is the fundamental tenet of a democracy.

Allowing an unelected and politically appointed body to overrule the decisions of the people's elected representatives, as is the case in some countries, is the antithesis of a true democracy.

I think it maintains a good balance, from a separation of powers perspective. In the US, the Supreme Court having the ability to review and overturn laws based on the Constitution is a powerful check against the legislature.

However, it only functions as a check so long as its decisions seem legitimate under the reasoning provided. If it starts looking like, "We're overturning this because we want to and we can," it starts losing its power, because it controls neither money nor armed force. All it has is technical authority, which relies on the willingness of people that HAVE money or force to abide by it, either by the significance of their personal oath, or pressure from the population. Both of those are eroded if they act in too partisan of a manner.

That's already seeming to happen currently and it's worrisome. Ideally, in response Americans will start putting pressure on the other two branches of government to choose more principled individuals.
 
Last edited:
In 2022 The Guardian reported, "British sources, however, said they believed there was no suggestion that Begum travelled involuntarily to Syria, despite her young age. Officials believe she aligned herself with IS by remaining with the group in Syria and Iraq past the age of 18, and that she posed a security risk to the UK." Inasmuch as she was 15, I don't follow this logic. Governments restrict behavior of young people in many ways. They do so on the principle that one has to be mature enough to make an informed choice (or at least that is my understanding).

At the time the three girls left it was stated that they could return and it was clearly understood that they travelled under the influence of others.
The argument seems to be that if they stayed aligned with IS after the age of 18 they are now responsible. That seems to me a very weak argument since they had little option but to align with IS once they were in Syria. I doubt she is a security risk to the UK but if she is, then the risk is the same for anywhere else and the UK should take responsibility since we allowed this to happen. It was also partly due to incompetence of authorities that evidence of radicalisation and grooming was not acted on at the time.
 
My view remains the same.

She doesn't have any other nationality than British.
She was groomed
She was sex trafficked across the EU
She entered into a forced marriage
She supported ISIS

She should be repatriated to the UK, she should go on trial for her support of ISIS, that she was groomed and sex trafficked needs to be taken into account if she is found guilty of that crime. If a jail sentence is the appropriate punishment after due process and a guilty decision then she should be treated like other British citizen found guilty of such crimes. I assume after release she would remain on our "watch list".
 
If there is evidence of radicalisation and grooming, this is also partly due to incompetence and negligence of her parents - who, apparently, were not very interested in the life of their daughter.
 
If there is evidence of radicalisation and grooming, this is also partly due to incompetence and negligence of her parents - who, apparently, were not very interested in the life of their daughter.

IIRC, the letters intended to warn the parents about the online radicalisation were for some bizarre reason given to the girls at school to give to their parents (of course they didn't). My memory is a little hazy on details but I don't think the parents were properly informed. Of course you can say that they should have known anyway, but it's not exactly uncommon for parents to have trouble regulating what their children do online.
 
If there is evidence of radicalisation and grooming, this is also partly due to incompetence and negligence of her parents - who, apparently, were not very interested in the life of their daughter.

Hence why in any sexual grooming case the parents should go to prison too no matter what they did or didn't do.

You conviced me we should render her parents stateless.
 
My memory is a little hazy on details but I don't think the parents were properly informed. Of course you can say that they should have known anyway, but it's not exactly uncommon for parents to have trouble regulating what their children do online.

I understand, but I think it's very bad. People rely on schools, authorities, goverment etc. - instead of taking personal responsibility and doing proper parenting.
 
Strasbourg

The World Socialist Web Site wrote, "Begum’s lawyers at Birnberg Peirce will take her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The lawyers said, 'It is a matter of the gravest concern that British women and children have been arbitrarily imprisoned in a Syrian camp for five years, all detained indefinitely without any prospect of a trial.

'All other countries in the UK’s position have intervened and achieved the return of their citizens and their children.'"
 
The World Socialist Web Site wrote, "Begum’s lawyers at Birnberg Peirce will take her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The lawyers said, 'It is a matter of the gravest concern that British women and children have been arbitrarily imprisoned in a Syrian camp for five years, all detained indefinitely without any prospect of a trial.

'All other countries in the UK’s position have intervened and achieved the return of their citizens and their children.'"

Unfortunately that article doesn’t say on what grounds the appeal is going to be made on. I still think the court won’t take the case.
 
My view remains the same.

She doesn't have any other nationality than British.
She was groomed
She was sex trafficked across the EU
She entered into a forced marriage
She supported ISIS

She should be repatriated to the UK, she should go on trial for her support of ISIS, that she was groomed and sex trafficked needs to be taken into account if she is found guilty of that crime. If a jail sentence is the appropriate punishment after due process and a guilty decision then she should be treated like other British citizen found guilty of such crimes. I assume after release she would remain on our "watch list".

Yep. This seems to me to be the most reasonable view.
 
My view remains the same.

She doesn't have any other nationality than British.
She was groomed
She was sex trafficked across the EU
She entered into a forced marriage
She supported ISIS

She should be repatriated to the UK, she should go on trial for her support of ISIS, that she was groomed and sex trafficked needs to be taken into account if she is found guilty of that crime. If a jail sentence is the appropriate punishment after due process and a guilty decision then she should be treated like other British citizen found guilty of such crimes. I assume after release she would remain on our "watch list".

Yup. You have decided that, no matter what the actual facts are, Begum was an innocent victim, and not to blame for anything she has ever done. We know that. You've made that very clear, and going over the facts again will not shake your misapprehensions in the slightest.
What I'm not sure about is why you apparently take some pride in this.
 
The thing is though, rendering a person stateless like the UK has done breaks a whol load of international laws.

Just because the UK doesn't want to remain within the rule of law on this issue, it does not follow that the relevant international courts are going to just shrug their shoulders.

No matter how many times you say this, it will never, ever be true. The British courts have not acted illegally, Begum has not been rendered stateless by the UK, and the fact that you don't like this changes nothing.
 
Yup. You have decided that, no matter what the actual facts are, Begum was an innocent victim, and not to blame for anything she has ever done. We know that. You've made that very clear, and going over the facts again will not shake your misapprehensions in the slightest.
What I'm not sure about is why you apparently take some pride in this.

You quote Darat saying that Begum supported Isis, and still spout this drivel?
 
You quote Darat saying that Begum supported Isis, and still spout this drivel?

Yup. Apparently, in Darat's eyes, her support for ISIS has nothing to do with her running away to join ISIS, nor does that mean she is guilty of joining a terrorist organisation. No, in the world of Darat, everything Begum has done is someone else's fault.
 
Yup. You have decided that, no matter what the actual facts are, Begum was an innocent victim, and not to blame for anything she has ever done. We know that. You've made that very clear, and going over the facts again will not shake your misapprehensions in the slightest.
What I'm not sure about is why you apparently take some pride in this.

What a strange response given what I have posted on this matter in the past.

I do assume that all 15 year olds that are groomed and then sex-trafficked are innocent, so yes, I do believe she was an "innocent victim" of such grooming. Do you really not think that all children who are groomed are innocent?

I also believe that later, when older she did support ISIS and probably at least aided and abetted them in their barbarism. That is why I have repeatedly said she needs to stand trial for her crimes. Now in the UK justice system that means it must start with the presumption of innocence and the state has to prove that she was guilty of the crimes she is charged with. So in a technical sense as someone who believes in the philosophical views behind the UK justice I do have to say she is "innocent". But that is only in the matter of any trial, my current view from what I think I know is that she is guilty and therefore should be in jail when she comes back (but of course only after a trial). I do think her initial grooming needs to be taken into account during sentencing.
 
Yup. Apparently, in Darat's eyes, her support for ISIS has nothing to do with her running away to join ISIS, nor does that mean she is guilty of joining a terrorist organisation. No, in the world of Darat, everything Begum has done is someone else's fault.

For the record my first post in this thread back in 2019:

Although she was a kid when she was groomed at some point she has to treated as the adult she now is. So if she returned she should be put on trail and if found guilty jailed etc.

As for her child, it should be removed as soon as possible and placed for adoption, her immediate family should not be able to apply for custody, they have shown they are unfit to raise children.
 
What a strange response given what I have posted on this matter in the past.

I do assume that all 15 year olds that are groomed and then sex-trafficked are innocent, so yes, I do believe she was an "innocent victim" of such grooming. Do you really not think that all children who are groomed are innocent?

I also believe that later, when older she did support ISIS and probably at least aided and abetted them in their barbarism. That is why I have repeatedly said she needs to stand trial for her crimes. Now in the UK justice system that means it must start with the presumption of innocence and the state has to prove that she was guilty of the crimes she is charged with. So in a technical sense as someone who believes in the philosophical views behind the UK justice I do have to say she is "innocent". But that is only in the matter of any trial, my current view from what I think I know is that she is guilty and therefore should be in jail when she comes back (but of course only after a trial). I do think her initial grooming needs to be taken into account during sentencing.

This is the problem, right here. The courts have repeatedly rejected the attempts by Begum's lawyers that she was groomed and trafficked. You resolutely ignore this, and cling stubbornly to this disproven claim.
 
I'm sure children so commonly leave their home countries to travel to war zones, that the courts consider it normal.
 
Can we note, once again, that the age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10. This applies to everyone, even 15-year-olds. Even brown 15-year-olds. Even brown, female, Muslim 15-year-olds. She was, in the eyes of the law, old enough to know what she was doing, old enough to distinguish between right and wrong, and old enough to accept responsibility for her own actions. No amount of bleeding-heart handwringing will change that: nor do I think it should.
 
Nor does Darat, as he wants her to stand trial for her criminal decisions. The courts are abdicating their responsibility by refusing to even try her.

Also, criminal responsibility does not make a child not a child, no matter if she's brown, female, or Muslim. This Brit should stand trial for her actions as a British child, stolen right out of her country under the noses of those who should have been protecting her.
 
This is the problem, right here. The courts have repeatedly rejected the attempts by Begum's lawyers that she was groomed and trafficked. You resolutely ignore this, and cling stubbornly to this disproven claim.

Which judgements referred to her grooming?
 
Yup. You have decided that, no matter what the actual facts are, Begum was an innocent victim, and not to blame for anything she has ever done. We know that. You've made that very clear, and going over the facts again will not shake your misapprehensions in the slightest.
What I'm not sure about is why you apparently take some pride in this.

Come off it. Think back to when you were fifteen. Can you honestly say hand on heart your peers or an older age group didn't persuade you to do, say or wear something that, looking back, you realise was utterly stupid and would never have happened were you an adult?

Should you be held responsible evermore for wearing those stacked platform boots or getting paralytic drunk on vodka and gin or joining some whacko political or religious group because you thought their ideas were great at the time.

Or do you understand that you were an immature un-fully formed person as of that age?
 
This is the problem, right here. The courts have repeatedly rejected the attempts by Begum's lawyers that she was groomed and trafficked. You resolutely ignore this, and cling stubbornly to this disproven claim.

Because what the courts do is always correct? Or because you think it doesn't matter whether she was groomed or not, and fortunately neither do the courts?
 
This is the problem, right here. The courts have repeatedly rejected the attempts by Begum's lawyers that she was groomed and trafficked. You resolutely ignore this, and cling stubbornly to this disproven claim.

That's because they rely solely on the word of intelligence operatives that she is still a security risk. That is fair enough but what isn't fair is that her defence lawyers and herself are not allowed to know what this claim is based on. Intelligence operatives tend to be ultra-nationalistic (ipso facto) and have a very polarised view of what is patriotic and what is not, so IMV, what they claim is a security risk might be based on nothing more than a knee jerk reaction, not dissimilar to some views expressed her. They know she is a risk but are unable to articulate in which way. It seems to be based on good old-fashioned prejudice, in its original meaning of the word, preconceived ideas not based on ration, just a 'feeling'.
 
Nor does Darat, as he wants her to stand trial for her criminal decisions. The courts are abdicating their responsibility by refusing to even try her.

Also, criminal responsibility does not make a child not a child, no matter if she's brown, female, or Muslim. This Brit should stand trial for her actions as a British child, stolen right out of her country under the noses of those who should have been protecting her.

Your last sentence says it all. She's just a sweet innocent child, butter wouldn't melt in her mouth, why is everyone being so mean to her?
She made her choice. She can live with it. I'm shedding no tears for that poisonous monster.
 
Back
Top Bottom