Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
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?
Or there's a third option....
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?
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?
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'.
Or there's a third option....
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Shamima-Begum-OPEN-Judgment.pdf
You can grep "groom" in the text but tl;dr version
You don't think she was groomed, and fortunately the courts don't care, or fortunately they agree with you?
You do realise how infuriating and pointless it is to discuss things with someone whose go to is to quote a court decision?
Please show them rejecting grooming, it is not something they have had to consider as it is irrelevant to the laws that have been argued in court.No, that's because they rejected the claim of grooming, and that of trafficking, because there was a) insufficient evidence to support those claims, and b) evidence that Begum acted voluntarily and of her own volition.
The assessment of security risk has nothing at all to do with this particular topic.
I agree that teenagers are often prone to doing "stupid" stuff (such as making really dumb fashion choices.)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?
Sorry search for "GROUND 1" in that document which is: "16. GROUND 1: the Secretary of State failed to take into account an obviously material relevant consideration and/or failed to undertake proper inquiries into it, namely that Ms
Begum may have been a victim of trafficking in February 2015, and thereafter."
Please show them rejecting grooming, it is not something they have had to consider as it is irrelevant to the laws that have been argued in court.
258.Reasonable Secretaries of State could lawfully apply different policies to the exercise of the section 40 function. It is possible to envisage a perfectly lawful policy that precludes the decision-maker from depriving children at all, or from depriving them
without deciding whether they were or may have been trafficked. But that is not the policy that this Secretary of State implemented.
259.For all these reasons, the Commission is unable to accept Ms Knights’ argument that trafficking is relevant to the exercise of the section 40 power
Would you prefer that we ignore the only factual evidence that we have, and speculate based on our personal biases instead? I'd rather not, thanks all the same.
All we know for sure is that Begum's lawyers played the grooming card, and the courts rejected it. Unless, that is, you have some other source of information regarding the circumstances of her joining ISIS. Do you? I'd be more than happy to discuss it if you have.
252.The Commission has already found that there is a credible suspicion that Ms Begum has been trafficked. Applying the principles in Rantsev, there is a credible suspicion that the State’s protective duties were violated back in 2015. On the evidence, there is also a credible suspicion that Ms Begum was harboured by her traffickers until January 2019. How, then, can these factors not be mandatory relevant considerations?
257.However, the proposition that the Secretary of State must view Ms Begum’s case through the lens of trafficking cannot be supported. This is not a mandatory relevant consideration, and there is an inherent question-begging in the contention that it is. On Ms Knights’ argument, the primary focus would not be national security but the fact that Ms Begum was groomed by others for the purposes of sexual exploitation. The Commission cannot accept that the Secretary of State should be compelled to view her case in these terms. Further, the trafficking analysis removes from consideration all questions of fact and degree. We have already made the point that the legal policy underlying Article 4 is not nuanced. Children cannot consent to sexual exploitation and the inquiry ends there. However, for the purposes of the broader considerations relevant to the proper exercise of the power under section 40, there is force in Sir James’ submission that issues of personal responsibility and agency are not black and white.
She's just a sweet innocent child ... that poisonous monster.
And don't you dare tell me that the evidence of her not being groomed is that a court decided that she wasn't groomed.
What factual evidence?
Here's my evidence for her being groomed: The age of consent in the UK is 16. She was 15 went she went off to be an underage bride in a war zone at the behest of people much older than her, people who had influenced her into thinking that this was the right course of action through obviously manipulative means.
Meanwhile, the evidence against her being groomed is what? The fact that she agreed with the groomers? Hard to imagine how that could have come about.
And don't you dare tell me that the evidence of her not being groomed is that a court decided that she wasn't groomed.
You do realise these are the extreme ends of a very long line, not the only two possibilities?
I read this as saying that she was groomed but that does not restrict the Secretary of State's power under section 40. To me, it keeps coming back to the fact that the SoS has very broad powers under section 40.
eta: I also read a shade of "it sucks but that's the law" but I am not an expert in legal language or phrasing.
I do. However, I have yet to see anything from Begum to suggest that she is genuinely remorseful for her actions. She is upset that ISIS lost, and that she got caught, but no more than that. I simply cannot understand the constant excuses being made for her. These excuses contrast sharply with the reactions to, for example, the teenagers being arrested in the UK for participating in the recent riots. I haven't seen anyone making exuses for them. My opinion is that Begum's defenders are more motivated by ideology than by facts, and I am trying to highlight that in my posts.
They rejected Ground 1 (grooming) as tl;dr it was the Secretary of State's role to assess that and not the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The discussion starts on page 49.
I do. However, I have yet to see anything from Begum to suggest that she is genuinely remorseful for her actions. She is upset that ISIS lost, and that she got caught, but no more than that.
I simply cannot understand the constant excuses being made for her. These excuses contrast sharply with the reactions to, for example, the teenagers being arrested in the UK for participating in the recent riots. I haven't seen anyone making exuses for them. My opinion is that Begum's defenders are more motivated by ideology than by facts, and I am trying to highlight that in my posts.
I've not seen anything either - but what has that to do with her being put on trial for her crimes, that is the type of issue that is dealt with by the judge when they decide on sentencing.
What excuses? Has anyone said she shouldn't be put on trial for what she has done?
What defenders? Has anyone said she shouldn't be held responsible for her crimes?
Which ideology?
Yep. As I said whether she was groomed or not was not a matter of law that the courts have had to rule on in regards to the legal decisions they have made as it is irrelevant to those decisions.
I've not seen anything either - but what has that to do with her being put on trial for her crimes, that is the type of issue that is dealt with by the judge when they decide on sentencing.
You are conflating two separate issues. The idea that she was groomed absolves her from personal responsibility for her own actions, and assumes she did not actually want to join ISIS. Whether or not she should be allowed back to face trial is another issue.
Yes. Vixen, for a start.Then there's your own position, which is that somehow it isn't her fault. Others on this thread take that stance too.
As I have said, claiming she's just a brainwashed child is saying just that. It's saying that it's someone else's doing that made her that way, and she was just an innocent pawn.
Left-wing, post-colonial guilt.
Citation, please.
For goodness sake, have you never heard of Stockholm Syndrome? ?
Stockholm Syndrome applies to victims, hostages, not to perpetrators. You are saying she was brainwashed by her environment. Nowhere in that long, rambling post of yours do you say she is responsible for her own actions.
In an earlier post, you downplayed the seriousness of what she'd done, saying her joining a terrorist group was a childish whim, no more serious than wearing platform shoes. That doesn't shout 'put her on trial!' to me.
However, perhaps you forgot to say that part out loud.
For the record, do you believe Begum should be help responsible for her actions, both at the time of her journey to Syria, and afterwards? Would you like to see her stand trial for terrorist offences?
Patty Hearst is an heiress to the Hearst yellow-newspaper fortune, abducted and held for ransom. She was later spotted participating in a bank robbery with the group that kidnapped her. The only criminal charges brought against her were for the bank robbery, not with her abduction.
That's right. She was treated leniently because it was accepted she was brainwashed by the Symbiotic cult in a Stockholm Syndrome situation. This is when hostages or other type of captives - such as young people being groomed - take the side of their captors or abusers. This is a survival mechanism, and is also to do with empathising with the people close to you.
The survival instinct is at the heart of the Stockholm syndrome. Victims live in enforced dependence and interpret rare or small acts of kindness in the midst of horrible conditions as good treatment.
Grooming got her to Syria, then she was entirely in their power just as Patricia was in that closet.
This. However there are two main issues: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".
Like you said, grooming. Once she was in Syria she was completely at the mercy of ISIS, they controlled her entire environment. Also she hasn't been put on trial yet.
This. However there are two main issues:
1. The ignorant masses who refuse to accept point one above.2. The deep reluctance of the prior UKGov to actually let the (alleged) criminal case against her get anywhere near a court.
Stockholm Syndrome applies to victims, hostages, not to perpetrators. You are saying she was brainwashed by her environment. Nowhere in that long, rambling post of yours do you say she is responsible for her own actions.
In an earlier post, you downplayed the seriousness of what she'd done, saying her joining a terrorist group was a childish whim, no more serious than wearing platform shoes. That doesn't shout 'put her on trial!' to me.
However, perhaps you forgot to say that part out loud.
For the record, do you believe Begum should be help responsible for her actions, both at the time of her journey to Syria, and afterwards? Would you like to see her stand trial for terrorist offences?
Bump for Vixen. Can you answer the questions, please?
In short, the Stockholm Syndrome does not appear as pervasive as negotiators once thought.Although depicted in fiction and film and often referred to by the news media, the phenomenon actually occurs rarely.
Stockholm Syndrome applies to victims, hostages, not to perpetrators. You are saying she was brainwashed by her environment. Nowhere in that long, rambling post of yours do you say she is responsible for her own actions.
In an earlier post, you downplayed the seriousness of what she'd done, saying her joining a terrorist group was a childish whim, no more serious than wearing platform shoes. That doesn't shout 'put her on trial!' to me.
However, perhaps you forgot to say that part out loud.
For the record, do you believe Begum should be help responsible for her actions, both at the time of her journey to Syria, and afterwards? Would you like to see her stand trial for terrorist offences?
Yes, of course Begum should stand trial if there is reasonable prospect of success of a conviction. You need more than hearsay and the opinion of tabloid columnists to get it past CPS.