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

I'm late to the party, but I'm another vote for bringing her back to face trial and re-education under strict surveillance. She'd potentially be very useful dissuading other young people from joining IS or other extremist organizations abroad - her experience in of being groomed would be vital to know and understand. She's young, has endured severe trauma and needs lot of compassion and therapy before she can begin to be rehabilitated into society again.

Thank you from me GSM for taking the time and effort to explain Begum’s situation. It certainly clarified things for me.

Thanks Urms.

GSM ''I have no desire to argue with her apparent supporters.''

who on earth here is an 'apparent supporter' - no-one.

She is a British citizen born and bred and it was taken from her- a vulnerable child groomed by terrorists. Are you saying she was not groomed, not vulnerable, not suffering from mental instability and probably disorder?

No-one if a supporter- at all. But she was groomed, she was a minor, she had her born and bred nationality taken away,

and she is much more dangerous there than here.

Germanshepherdsmum

She wasn’t deprived of citizenship because her parents weren’t born here. You know perfectly well why her British citizenship was revoked. She had dual citizenship of Great Britain and Bangladesh at the time her British citizenship was revoked. It’s hardly the fault of the British government if she subsequently allowed her Bangladeshi citizenship to lapse.

Had you bothered to read the Bangladeshi citizenship law Gsm you would be aware that dual citizenship is prohibited by the law
Subject to the provisions of this section if any person is a citizen of Bangladesh under the provisions of this Act, and is at the same time a citizen or national of any other country, he shall unless he makes a declaration according to the laws of that other country renouncing his status as citizen or national thereof, cease to be a citizen of Bangladesh
As SB never renounced her UK citizenship she could not according to Bangladeshi law retain her citizenship of that country.
It is interesting that a supposedly undeveloped country has clear legal guidelines for citizenship whereas UK citizenship rests on the whims of the government.

I watched the documentary re Shamima Begum and didn't find her a particularly easy person to warm to. However, I think she should not be stripped of her British citizenship.

She was 15 years old, seemed to have had a rather difficult family background, and was therefore vulnerable to grooming and promises of a happy ever after land. Also, there was a Canadian involved who seemingly encouraged and assisted her and the other girls.

Over the last eight years the girls she went out with have been killed, she has herself lost more than one child and has had no family to turn to while in a refugee camp. So in many respects her life over the last five years has been a sort of imprisonment.

Doesn't this judgment mean that a British citizen born of parents who were not from the UK is not being treated in the same way as a British citizen whose parents were from the UK? That seems like second class citizenship to me - and I think that is a sure way to create more feelings of alienation.

There must be several actual terrorists in UK prisons now who have planned or even committed acts of terrorism, but they have not been stripped of their citizenship. Presumably, when they eventually leave prison, if they are British citizens they will not have that citizenship removed.

I've been listening to the podcast, "I am not a monster" and her voice is very flat and lifeless. She doesn't engender sympathy but the more of the podcasts I hear, the more I wonder about what the life she led in Syria (and perhaps before) has done to her mental state. In the last one I've listened to she is fifteen, the husband chosen for her has been sent to prison by ISIS for some reason and she is sent to live with a family she's never met before, who it appears was quite important in the ISIS organisation. She discovers she's pregnant but miscarries later on. She doesn't admit it but I think she will have been aware of the market where Yazidi people were sold as slaves and the places where the heads of people were displayed after their execution. Ordinary Syrians lived in Raqqa, they survived by keeping their heads down and doing as they were told by ISIS. It must have been appalling to live there but people do what they have to to survive. I have no doubt in my mind that she was completely unaware of what she was getting herself into when she flew to Turkey.

So she's the victim now it seems, or perhaps some posters are really naive.

I read with interest how other countries have repatriated their citizens from Syria and have taken a mature and responsible attitude towards those who are citizens of their country.

The U.K. is the only one who has broken international law (again).

I am certainly not naive but do know a bit about neuroscience and psychology and developing brains, and I’m sure that any one of us at 15 given the right background and circumstances could end up where she has. It’s not naivety but compassion and fairness.
We seem to be going down a path in this country of adapting the law to suit political decisions. God help us when the Human Rights Act is “reformed”.

The appeal document is available to view at www.judiciary.co.uk

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

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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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

That’s so true, isn’t it?

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.

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.