Has anyone watched the 90 minute BBC documentary on Shamima Begum?

I’m amazed at the sympathy here for someone who, amongst other obnoxious things, said she thought the Birmingham Arena bombing was ‘a just retaliation’. People who think she can be ‘rehabilitated’ despite the doubt of the security services that she can ever be deradicalised. And we only have access to the ‘open’ judgement. Whatever further evidence must have been heard in camera to make the Tribunal decide that deprivation of citizenship was lawful? But people still say she was a child and should be brought back with absolutely no idea of the full picture .

Yes Germanshepherdsmum, but Mr Justice Jay, on behalf of the tribunal, was at pains to express the concerns I’ve mentioned above. He could have confined his comments to the citizenship issue only, but he chose to address other aspects of the case too (possibly paving the way for another appeal).

The Tribunal was only required to decide whether the HS had acted within the law. It decided, after reviewing more evidence than we are privy to, that he had.

Ah well it’ll keep the lawyers busy for years. Apparently Begum has had legal aid ... to the tune of some 5 million £££ of taxpayer’s money already. That figure shocked me to be honest.

Germanshepherdsmum

The criminality continued after she became an adult.

She wasn't free to leave, once she was picked up in Turkey by ISIS she had no autonomy. A girl who tried to leave Syria but got caught by ISIS was beaten to death, this was made public so you needed to be extremely brave and very lucky to leave ISIS. Her "criminality" continued because she was trapped and she is still trapped because in the Al Hawl refugee camp she is still surrounded by people who might be members of ISIS. I don't know if she is a danger to our National Security, none of us do. We don't know what she was made to do or made to say by ISIS. I'm just someone who believes in innocence until proven guilty because that is the basis of the law in this country. She should come back and face trial, even if it is "in camera"

Mr Justice Jay said the the complexity of the case had caused the panel great concern and difficulty, and that there was a credible case that Shamima Begum had been trafficked to Syria for sexual exploitation. He also said it was not a black and white issue, that there were many shades of grey. But the panel concluded that the Home Secretary had acted within his powers in stripping her of her British citizenship.

It does sound as though the panel was not entirely comfortable with it’s decision.

The criminality continued after she became an adult.

Being as the security services and the tribunal put it ‘aligned with ISIS’ is a criminal act. You can have freedom of thought, but whether you become a criminal depends on what the thoughts translate into.

I think it is a crime to belong to proscribed groups, Daftbag, so catching a plane from the UK to go to Syria and join ISIS is in itself a criminal act.

I agree that she was a child at the time, and that whether she should be tried now for actions then is a problem.

I'm maybe a bit thick but I'm confused about what crime she could be tried for? She left Britain at 15, so as a child, she hadn't as far as I'm aware committed any crime whilst on our shores.

So can she be tried for an offence of another country? Did she actually commit an offence? She certainly had repulsive beliefs but she was a child for most of the time that she was expressing those beliefs.

So what are we going to try her for? Can we really have freedom of speech but not freedom of thought?

Glorianny that’s a question for MI5, not GN!
Grantanow she can appeal to the Court of Appeal, but only on a point of law.

The recent tribunal determined that Savid Javid as a Secretary of State was within his rights to remove her British citizenship and upheld that decision whatever other concerns they may have had. Her next steps are presumably to seek a High Court writ setting aside the tribunal findings (which would mean a further tribunal hearing) and then an appeal to the Supreme Court and the Court of Human Rights but none of that would change the legal position (if accurate) that removing her nationality was legal under UK law. It seems to me that all other points are moral or ethical but don't trump the legal position.

Could some one explain to me how leaving someone in refugee camp in a war torn country with little or no supervision is safer than returning them to the Uk where they can be watched properly? Of course she won't personally be a threat to the UK there but she and other radicals could recruit in the camps and those people could pose more of at terrorist threat.

That’s so true, isn’t it?

Germanshepherdsmum

I don’t trust our system to deal with her as I believe she should be dealt with. She has forfeited her right to sympathy from British people.

I am reminded of something I heard many years ago

the Security Services in order to do their job effectively have to be right every single time the terrorist only needs to be lucky once to cause fear, death and destruction

I don’t trust our system to deal with her as I believe she should be dealt with. She has forfeited her right to sympathy from British people.

Germanshepherdsmum

I also find that attitude troubling.

I would not like to see her brought back to the UK. You will have noticed the comment about the uncertainty as to whether she was capable of being deradicalised. She has the capacity to do enormous damage (we were reminded that she considered the Manchester Arena bombing a just retaliation) and it is completely impossible to keep someone under surveillance 24/7 for the rest of their life unless they are locked up in solitary confinement with no visitors and no ability to communicate - and that’s not going to happen.

I understand your point of view Germanshepherdsmum my initial response when she wanted to come to the U.K. was no never.

I am still wary of her motives, but she was born here and I trust our system more than that of the Syrian’s.

I also find that attitude troubling.

I would not like to see her brought back to the UK. You will have noticed the comment about the uncertainty as to whether she was capable of being deradicalised. She has the capacity to do enormous damage (we were reminded that she considered the Manchester Arena bombing a just retaliation) and it is completely impossible to keep someone under surveillance 24/7 for the rest of their life unless they are locked up in solitary confinement with no visitors and no ability to communicate - and that’s not going to happen.

Germanshepherdsmum

I have read the entire open judgment. It is very clear that there is significant information in the closed judgment about the reasons for the appeal being dismissed. One cannot make informed comment based on only part of the story. The Commission had the entire story at their disposal.

That is what I understand also.

I would prefer her to be put on trial here however, there is more to this case than in the public domain.

I do find the we must know everything attitude worrying and somewhat dangerous when it comes to National Security.

In this instance I have to trust in the Independent Body that does have all the information.

I have read the entire open judgment. It is very clear that there is significant information in the closed judgment about the reasons for the appeal being dismissed. One cannot make informed comment based on only part of the story. The Commission had the entire story at their disposal.

The right to a nationality is a basic human right. The government stated that Begum had Bangladeshi citizenship when they removed her U.K. citizenship so was therefore not rendered stateless, and they do not accept responsibility for her.

This decision is very contentious, and the Bangladeshi Government do not accept this to be the case.

I am now coming to the conclusion that if Ms Begum had been repatriated to stand trial immediately on her capture, rehabilitation may have been possible, and the security risk fairly low.

As the years have gone on, I suspect she's become too much of a focus for radical Islamists to allow her back.

I still think it sad that she should be punished in perpetuity for a decision made aged 15 but I'm not at all sure that she is not a security risk.

Yes I've read the document and it would seem if the government decide someone is a threat to National security and take away their citizenship then there is no proper appeal procedure. The judge didn't judge whether she was a threat to National security only on whether she had the right to appeal the Government's right to make that decision (if you see what I mean). I'm sure it will please the right wing of the party but there are some Conservatives who are unhappy about the decision.
And NO, I am not a "supporter" of SB but I am a supporter of the rule of law and proper justice for ALL of us, regardless of what we are accused of.

I dont support radical Islam or their policies. However I agree with the posters who believe she made a foolish decision at age 15 and may possibly have been groomed. Radicalization is a form of grooming. Thinking of how naive I was at 15 and some of the silly things I got up to at that age. A person of 15 is below the age of consent and a child. To strip a child of their citzenship for something they did at that age is very harsh. She should not be made to spend her life paying for a rash decision she made as a child. Even child killers (ie children who kill) are not so harshly treated.

Yes I’ve read it. Very lengthy, and conclusion finely balanced I think.