Seems the jihadi bride Shamima Begum might be coming back to stand trial in the U.K.

Chewbacca

^She's an alleged terrorist.^

Correct. All we do know for certain, is that she supported and enabled terrorism. It has yet to be proven as to whether she was a member of the ISIS "morality police", and also tried to recruit other young women to join the jihadist group. She was allowed to carry a Kalashnikov rifle and earned a reputation as a strict enforcer of ISIL's laws, such as dress codes for women, and whether this constituted war crimes.

It's interesting that Javid's decision to strip her of her citizenship was criticised by Begum's immediate family members, who sought to stop it through legal methods, but her brother-in-law Muhammad Rahman urged the public to support the government decision. And on 24 February, her father Ahmed Ali said, "If she at least admitted she made a mistake then I would feel sorry for her and other people would feel sorry for her, but she does not accept her wrong."

My point (and I'm sure you know this Chewbacca) is that she hasn't actually been convicted of anything.

I have expressed no emotions about her at all.

That's why the law must be upheld. Justice is blind. It is impartial and objective.

True.

My point (and I'm sure you know this Chewbacca) is that she hasn't actually been convicted of anything

Have I said that she has*growstuff*? My post actually supports yours @ 15.48.... I posted "correct" so I'm not sure what your point is.

The title for the thread is wrong. Misleading. I ought not to have said SB was returning for trial. Apologies. It was about returning to appeal against being stateless, as per Savid Javed’s decision.

Maybe the law should get tightened or changed to properly include treason as an offence? Maybe it will after this dog’s dinner of decision making.

A child that was groomed. Now lost three children. Goodness knows what she has seen, and been subjected to.

A civilised country would give her as much Counselling and reform that she needs to enable her to become part of U.K. society again.

Why are the perpetrators always portrayed as the victims in this left leaning country? She's not a victim. She was old enough to evade the police and security services when she left. She knew full well what she was doing, who she betraying and who she was getting in bed with (literally). Now she has to live with the consequences of those well thought through choices she made.

In my opinion.

Plus, I recall how she responded when asked to speak about the bombing at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester (where I live).

She said that the bombings of the innocent children at the event were justified and this was in February 2019 (two years after the atrocity).

She has shown no remorse and will not show any. When and if she returns to the UK she will become the poster girl for IS recruiters.

she is British.

What would you do ug?

she is British

No! Really? Never knew that!

so has to be judged by British Court and face prison in the UK - as any other British criminal. Simple.

I thought the Court of Appeal ruled that she should be allowed back to fight to have her UK citizenship reinstated.
She will not be on trial for offences.

She is high profile and if she wins this, it will set a precedent for dozens of others.

Fairness and justice must .......... outweigh national security said Lord Justice Faux.

That is quite a disturbing judgement especially for those who have lost loved ones in, for example, the Manchester bombing.
Whose human rights take precedence?

Whitewavemark2

A child that was groomed. Now lost three children. Goodness knows what she has seen, and been subjected to.

A civilised country would give her as much Counselling and reform that she needs to enable her to become part of U.K. society again.

Goodness knows what she has subjected terrified Yazidi women and girls to.

But that's ok because Shia do that in Iraq according to Begum.

so has to be judged by British Court and face prison in the UK - as any other British criminal. Simple

You do realise that Shamima Begum isn't being allowed back in the UK to be judged on any criminality don't you biba70?

And she won't be "facing prison" because she hasn't been charged with a crime or been found guilty of any crime. She's being allowed back into the UK purely to contest having her British Citizenship revoked, not face criminal proceedings.

Quite.

Chewbacca

^My point (and I'm sure you know this Chewbacca) is that she hasn't actually been convicted of^ anything

Have I said that she has*growstuff*? My post actually supports yours @ 15.48.... I posted "correct" so I'm not sure what your point is.

I wasn't arguing with you. I was (I hoped) reinforcing what you wrote.

I haven't once given an opinion on her or tried to psychoanalyse her actions. Nobody on here knows what I think.

My only point is that the law must be upheld. The UK still has a reputation (just) for having a fair and uncorrupted justice system. The law is paramount in everything the country does (or should be) and nobody has the right to pre-judge. Legal recourse must not be withheld just because the public doesn't like somebody or has already decided that he/she is guilty.

Whose human rights take precedence?

Well according to the judges Callistemon SB ‘s rights do.

Quote from them:
"Fairness and justice must outweigh national security concerns".

This quote by one of our judges says it all doesn’t it? The UK has lost the plot completely.

It does seem to be a worrying judgement if that is their reasoning.

I don't find it worrying "natonal security concerns" are just that- concerns. They are not proven threats nor even likely threats. Fairness and justice must outweigh concerns or we live in a society where worrying something might happen is more important than ensuring that people are treated fairly and justice is done.Which could lead to all sorts of abuses. I might for example be concerned about the threat right wing groups represent to democracy but unless I have proof of that threat I shouldn't be able to act against them.

Would you want to live next door.

Sparkling

Would you want to live next door.

Why not?

trisher

I don't find it worrying "natonal security concerns" are just that- concerns. They are not proven threats nor even likely threats. Fairness and justice must outweigh concerns or we live in a society where worrying something might happen is more important than ensuring that people are treated fairly and justice is done.Which could lead to all sorts of abuses. I might for example be concerned about the threat right wing groups represent to democracy but unless I have proof of that threat I shouldn't be able to act against them.

If the Home Office has any sense at all (and assuming the Supreme Court doesn't overturn the court judgment), Begum will be arrested the moment she sets foot on British soil. They'll think up some charge and she'll be kept under supervision without bail. From a pragmatic point of view, she's more of a danger in a refugee camp, where she could organise disaffected people for an attack, even if she can't get to the UK herself.

The law must be paramount.

Callistemon

So what about all the others who did the same, many of whom have returned?
They were older and probably less naive but are living back in the UK.

Begum is more high profile simply because she was only 15 when she left. I am not saying that she is not possibly still dangerous but is she more dangerous than the hundreds of other returnees? They have not lost their citizenship.

A good point.All those who managed to slip quietly back into the UK undetected are in my view, much more dangerous.
If SB returns here, has her citizenship returned to her and lives here, then she will be watched and on the terrorist list all of her life.I don’t know, none of us can know, how she really now feels about IS, the hope is that she will be so relieved to return to normality that she will seek a quiet life.

I don't think she will ever be able to live a normal life again. Even if she is not tried and found guilty, she will always be the object of curiosity.
She was groomed, indoctrinated and is now being used by human rights lawyers as a test case.

Someone upthread demanded that we stop ‘going on’ about racism.

No! Racism needs to be called out.

By not ‘going on’ about it you are condoning it. If it makes someone uncomfortable or angry to be called out as a racist then perhaps they should drop their ‘I’m not racist but...’ attitude and honestly examine their conscience.

This debate does all hinge on our attitude to a Muslim girl.

I don't consider it to be racism when talking about suspected terrorists who are claiming to be Muslims. Islam is not an ethnicity is it? Anyone can be a Muslim, it is not confined to one race or nationality .