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

Would you want to live next door.

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.

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

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.

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.

Quite.

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.

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.

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?

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

she is British

No! Really? Never knew that!

What would you do ug?

she is British.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

True.

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.

tickingbird

*But you don't make laws*

You’d do well to remember that neither do you, thank heavens.

What's that supposed to mean?

You seem to think your opinion about Begum's guilt is important. It isn't. My opinion isn't important either.

That's why the law must be upheld. Justice is blind. It is impartial and objective, which many of the comments on this thread aren't.

it would appear from what we know that she is a terrorist BUT do we all know the facts? that is the purpose of having a trial to decide what is the correct outcome. As people have said she was born in the UK and should face UK law.

These monsters who prey on the young and vulnerable and
radicalise them are beyond despicable. They ruin lives.

The problem is Begum has been radicalised and as far as we know still is.

My GD had friends who attended the concert in Manchester a few years ago where one of these radicalised people blew up and killed 22 people some of them only children.

Some of those who survived have never got over the attack.

I don't think I for one can trust anyone who has been radicalised.

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.

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."

But you don't make laws

You’d do well to remember that neither do you, thank heavens.