• 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

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?

Take it up with Parliament. The law, as it stands, disagrees with you. As do I.
 
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'.

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.
 
Or there's a third option....

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?
 
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?

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.
 
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.
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.
 
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?
I agree that teenagers are often prone to doing "stupid" stuff (such as making really dumb fashion choices.)

But I don't think the situation really compares here.

You would hope that even someone as young as a teenager would put more thought and consideration into "should I go hang out with people who behead infidels" than they would "should I wear these funky shoes".

One of those items has significantly more ethical and personal implications than the other.
 
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."

And Ground 1 was rejected by SIAC. We've gone over all this before.
 
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.

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.
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

It's worse than that, the court decided that whether or not she was groomed wasn't relevant to the question they were deciding upon. Cosmic Yak thinks this is evidence that she wasn't groomed, and better evidence than anything else we have available, including the clear reasoning you mention.
 
What factual evidence?

The statements from Begum's lawyers, and Begum's own words.

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.

Let's talk definitions here for a moment. Begum was radicalised by online videos. She was fully aware of the atrocities that were being committed by ISIS, and she supported them. She came to believe that her role in assisting ISIS in their goals was to act as a housewife and mother to terrorists.
So, what then is the difference between radicalisation and grooming? I do believe this is an important distinction. 'Grooming' assumes that the primary goal is sexual exploitation. With 'radicalisation', though, the goal is ideological. There is evidence that Begum was involved in actual terrorism- this has been linked to upthread. This wasn't just about sex, and I think it a mistake to reduce it to that. What is your own definition of grooming, how would you distinguish that from radicalisation, and do you think that this is a relevant consideration?

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.

The SIAC court judgement goes into some detail about to what extent Begum's actions were voluntary. This is the evidence against her being groomed. She did this herself. To be sure, there was an element of manipulation: no-one becomes an extremist terrorist without a bit of persuasion, but to claim that this was entirely due to other people's actions is both naive, and contrary to what we know about this case.

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.

Can you explain your objection to court deliberations? The lengthy and detailed discussions are here for you to read. What grounds do you have for rejecting them?
 
You do realise these are the extreme ends of a very long line, not the only two possibilities?

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 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.

The definition of 'credible suspicion' is also relevant- it's mentioned in the ruling. Basically, it means 'it's possible'. No evidence is needed to support the claim. The judge actually says that this is a 'very low bar', and points out that Begum's lawyers were unable to supply any further evidence to support this claim.
There is also discussion in that document about grooming vs volition. They did cover this, and acknowledged that there was a mix of manipulation and voluntary action. This part appears to have been missed (or ignored) by Darat et al.
 
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.

For goodness sake, have you never heard of Stockholm Syndrome? It is a real thing. Begum was in an environment where everybody had the same sociological ethos. It's like being a Brit, you grow up surrounded by a culture that assumes being conservative and singing 'Jerusalem' is quite normal...until you start mixing with other people (or simply grow up) and realise there is more to the world than meets the eye. In Begum's situation, there very much was an us ~vs~ them outlook that you get in times of war. I can recall people as late as the 1990's yelling 'Get the Jerry!' every time a famous German footballer touched the ball at a football match, and these were teenagers who hadn't even been born when WWII was going on; it was an anti-German attitude picked up from their parents and grandparents, dito, some people towards the Japanese because of what happened on POW camps . So, surrounded by fundamentalist Islam fanatics in a war situation where they are literally standing by the windows in Aleppo firing guns at Assad's forces, exchanging gunfire, it would be no surprise to discover Begum has these weird views after all these years, especially mixing with the same radicalised women in the refugee camps. She has been away from the UK all these years, remember? Of course her view of life is skewed from her lack of contact with British culture. It is rather silly to expect a great show of remorse when she hasn't even been debriefed as to the bigger picture. She has said she is sorry and would be willing to undergo criminal investigation. What more do you demand?
 
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.

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 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'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.
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.

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?
 
Last edited:
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.

What excuses? Has anyone said she shouldn't be put on trial for what she has done?

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.

What defenders? Has anyone said she shouldn't be held responsible for her crimes?

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.

Which ideology?

Left-wing, post-colonial guilt.
 
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.

Let me try asking this again, as none of Begum's fanclub deigned to answer last time.
OK, she is brought back to the UK, sentenced, and found guilty of terrorist offences. Then what?
If she is placed in the general prison population, there is a significant risk of her radicalising those around her. If she is placed with other Islamist convicts, this creates a crucible of fundamentalism, leading to more of a threat. So, is she to be placed in solitary confinement for the duration of her sentence?
Then, what happens after she is released? Will she have to be watched, or do we just assume that she's rid herself of her murderous tendencies and is now fully rehabilitated?
What do we do with her? How do we ensure that she is no longer a threat to British society?
 
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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?

Thanks for admitting I said nothing of the sort you said I did. All civilised countries understand the concept of age being a mitigating factor. Note, mitigating doesn't mean the same as 'innocent'. Begum has never had a trial so how do you know whether she is innocent or guilty, and in any case, nationality shouldn't be determined on your likeability factor but on objective grounds. Objectively, Begum was British and now she is stateless.

You are being obtuse when you pretend not to understand these salient issues.
 
Actually after a long argument between Cosmic Yak and I it's clear he has a good understanding and where we differ is a few areas of interpretation - i.e. the (to me) awfulness of the power under section 40 and interpretation of some clauses in the Bangladeshi nationality act where I believe they are unclear.
 
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.
 
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.

It was not a Stockholm Syndrome situation. It was a classic grooming situation. I long ago got rid of my psychology texts but the Britannica is a good resource
https://www.britannica.com/science/Stockholm-syndrome
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.
 
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.
 
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".
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.
 
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.

Absolutely correct. In that environment your life would be in great danger if you expressed any opposition or dissent, so you play along, and often, due to cognitive dissonance, you even start rationalising that perhaps these people have a point and are fighting for a worthy cause.

It was grooming and radicalising to get the 15-year-old schoolgirls there and once there, they were at the mercy of their new 'husbands' and associates, following the tenets of fundamental Islamism.
 
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.

Both rude and wrong. She has automatic Bangladeshi citizenship. I suggest you read the pertinent parts of this thread, to better understand the issue you are commenting on.
 
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?
 
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.

Yeah, sorry, but you still haven't answered this one. You were the one that picked up on this, remember? I think it only fair that you should state your position clearly.
As for 'hearsay', she is on record admitting joining a terrorist organisation. Did you perhaps miss her saying that?
 
Back
Top Bottom