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

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.

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?

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.

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.

The criminality continued after she became an adult.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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).

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 .

No, Delia, he was addressing the separate grounds of appeal - each of which failed. All the grounds of appeal related to the citizenship issue and each had to be dealt with.

You have no access to the full picture, or further evidence either GSM. I, and you, have only the tribunal’s decision to go on, and it was as I outlined above.
If there is any sympathy expressed here, perhaps it is hinted at in the tribunal’s explanation for the decision it reached.

This interesting report warns against taking citizenship from women recruited by ISIS.
giwps.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Human-Trafficking-and-ISISs-Recruitment-of-Women-from-the-West.pdf

Germanshepherdsmum You keep talking about "sympathy" whereas I and others are not, we are just taking a different viewpoint. The judge in his summing up talked about "reasonable people" having a different view of her situation. I have a different view to you and clearly the judge recognised that this would be the case. We are having an open discussion and putting our own views across, this is not a straightforward situation and I think we all need to accept that, however well we put our case, we can't always get others to agree with us.

Glorianny

This interesting report warns against taking citizenship from women recruited by ISIS.
giwps.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Human-Trafficking-and-ISISs-Recruitment-of-Women-from-the-West.pdf

Thanks for posting this.

foxie, the law is the law and it has been applied, whether you like it or not. I’m not interested in people’s views, only in the proper application of the law. Whether anyone likes the decision of the Tribunal or not, unless and until it i# overturned that is the law.

foxie48

Glorianny

This interesting report warns against taking citizenship from women recruited by ISIS.
giwps.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Human-Trafficking-and-ISISs-Recruitment-of-Women-from-the-West.pdf

Thanks for posting this.

Thank you. Exactly how I feel, for those reasons. Even those who do not agree she was groomed, and a 15 year old child- this should be convincing enough It does NOT make us supporters at all.

Seems Starmer has changed his mind on Begum. He used to think she should be brought back to the UK but now thinks not as he says ‘national security must always come first’.

Indeed it must.

It’s blindingly obvious that those at the top have evidence supporting SB not being allowed back in the U.K.

As Javid said, if you knew what I know. That’s good enough for me.

So this country breaks international law by withdrawing her citizenship, and international standards by refusing to recognise and act, against people trading and child soldier recruitment. Its justification for this, there are security issues you can't know about. Not only is this illegal and immoral, it's short sighted and xenophobic. SB presented the opportunity not only to discover and study recruitment methods, but also to show the real result of muslim extremism for women. We seem happy to dump our home grown terrorists onto countries without the infrastructure to deal with them. So not only do we perpetuate the belief that western culture is unfair and corrupt, we leave figureheads and individuals around whom myths can be spun. Perhaps she is a security threat, but what we are actually saying is we can't, or won't deal with that. That could well have much wider consequences.

The law was not broken. The Tribunal confirmed that. I place my faith in the Tribunal’s decision and in the actions of the security services.

My understanding of the judgement was that the appeal was not able to over rule the decision of the secretary of state. Basically, once the Secretary of State had decided that she was a threat to National Security that over ruled every other consideration, which he agreed was finely balanced. I think it was the information given to Tony Blair by the Secret Intelligence Service that led us into the war with Iraq. Since then I've been a bit more sceptical of the accuracy of their reports.