Bring Shamima Begum Home!

Opal I am not naive. The safest place to live, if she is still a 'practicing terrorist', is right next door to her.

Anyway security considerations should play no part in deciding her nationality. They come in when she returns and the decision is made on whether to detain her and prosecute her or not.

Surely she would be subject to a rehabilitation program and not many people live next to a prison

She would need extensive rehabilitation though, that’s for sure

I assume you would be happy to have this woman living next to you or your children Casdon. I prefer to place my trust in the security services. I have already said that ‘dealing with her’ would mean only a short sentence for joining a proscribed organisation. Then what? She is free. Good luck with that.

Germanshepherdsmum

How can you possibly know that it’s a populist choice by the government Casdon? You have no idea what evidence has been given to the court in camera. No idea at all.

Neither have you Germanshepherdsmum. The bottom line is that the government made a choice to strip her of British citizenship. The UK is the second highest country in the world for stripping people of their citizenship since 2010, second to Bahrain only. There’s no doubt it was a populist decision, the three young ISIS brides were subject to intense public interest from day 1, and it was inevitable that they would be punished in a severe way accordingly. No doubt those on the right think it is acceptable to render British citizens stateless because they commit acts of terrorism, are security threats etc. I think it’s a dereliction of duty by the state. We should deal with our own.

The security services, the Home Secretary and the courts know.

Nobody does though so everyone opinion is neutral

How can you possibly know that it’s a populist choice by the government Casdon? You have no idea what evidence has been given to the court in camera. No idea at all.

M0nica

GSM I assume that if she returned to Britain she would be thoroughly investigated by the security services.

It would not bother me ata ll to have her living next door to me or my children or grandchildren. What harm could she do us?

Yes, I am on the fence about her return,but given she was radicalised I would not want her near my Grandchildren. I can't put my finger on it but she makes me feel uncomfortable.

Opal

M0nica

GSM I assume that if she returned to Britain she would be thoroughly investigated by the security services.

It would not bother me ata ll to have her living next door to me or my children or grandchildren. What harm could she do us?

She already has been investigated by the security services! Respectfully, M0nica, you are being totally naive. She has been denied return to the UK for a reason.

The reason she has been denied returning to the UK isn’t because of what she has done, it’s a populist choice by the government. That doesn’t make it the right choice, we have a responsibility to all our citizens, and she is still morally one of them.

mumofmadboys

Is there no room for forgiveness?

None.

M0nica

GSM I assume that if she returned to Britain she would be thoroughly investigated by the security services.

It would not bother me ata ll to have her living next door to me or my children or grandchildren. What harm could she do us?

She already has been investigated by the security services! Respectfully, M0nica, you are being totally naive. She has been denied return to the UK for a reason.

Callistemon, I agree, there may be families who would care for these children. It would involve complex, expensive assessments and likely state financial support for kinship carers.

What harm can she do? I can’t believe you said that. What harm have the many terrorists who have walked among us done?

GSM I assume that if she returned to Britain she would be thoroughly investigated by the security services

I assume she has been thoroughly investigated and vetted by the British Security Services, the results of which are not available to the public. That is why she remains where she is.

GSM I assume that if she returned to Britain she would be thoroughly investigated by the security services.

It would not bother me ata ll to have her living next door to me or my children or grandchildren. What harm could she do us?

Opal They jumped into cars, went into houses and accepted alcoholic drinks. The same level of dicsion making is required for both, especially if you live in London.

Did she join a terrorist organisation or was she just married off to the first available fighter to be sexually abused by him.

15 year olds do all sorts of stupid things, she was in a group with other girls her age.

Shamima Begum is a problem but instead of facing up to the problem Britain has pushed the problem onto others and made her stateless. If our legal system and security is not up to dealing with the problem it is us that needs to change.

Iam64

I’m tending to accept the Home Secretary and Court know more than I do so I accept the decision. This despite my empathy for a 15 year old who’d lived what most of us would see as a relatively sheltered life, who was groomed on line

SB’s three infants died but there are other children in these camps. I’m not sure that sending them back to their mother’s country of origin is better for them than staying with their mothers. R

The mothers are still in the camps for reasons best known to the security services of their countries of origin.

However, their young children might have families, grandparents, aunts, who might want to bring them up. Poor innocents, they are suffering from the sins of their mothers. One problem - what would be their nationality if registered in a Syrian camp?

Germanshepherdsmum

We have already gone over this in the other thread.

The court has confirmed that the Home Secretary acted lawfully in revoking her British citizenship.

Some of the hearings were held in camera because they involved putting sensitive information about national security before the court. We cannot be privy to that information but it is clear that the security services have reason to believe that she represents an ongoing threat to public safety. She is no longer a 15 year old girl but a woman who joined ISIS and witnessed what they did, without any expression of remorse.

If she were returned to the UK it seems that the only offence for which she could be tried, in the absence of any evidence of involvement in terrorism in the UK, is belonging to a proscribed organisation. The sentence would be short and she would then be free to walk among us, radicalising others and conspiring to commit acts of terrorism.

Stop seeing her as a 15 year old girl and see her as a dangerous woman from whom we need to be protected. She is a terrorist and deserves no sympathy.

Totally! Agreed and well said GSM!

Whatever SB’s ultimate fate I do hope our govt has reviewed PREVENT and has better more accurate Intel about any future British Citizens at danger of being radicalised. Sadly I think not as the case of David Amess MP murderer shows. He too was a British Citizen, educated in the UK!

I do feel desperately sorry for all the women and children in the awful Syrian camps, many would have had no clue what they were signing up for and many have been subjected to rape and married off again to reproduce when their original husbands are killed. These groups are cultish in manner and many females “brainwashed”. As a women and mother I have empathy.

Germanshepherdsmum

She is no longer a British citizen and she is now a very different person to the 15 year old girl, as we know from the information presented to the Home Secretary and the court by the security services. Remember the HS saying ‘if you knew what I know’? No, there is no room for forgiveness when that would put at risk our lives and those of our loved ones.

The government stripped her of British citizenship. She was born in the UK, she carried a British passport. She never had dual nationality. she is not now a citizen of any country. Stripping somebody of citizenship so they belong nowhere, and nobody takes responsibility for them is unjust.

There are differences between SB and the girls who were subject to organised child sexual abuse. One being SB appears to have been in a relatively stable home environment, she was expected to pass exams and attended school regularly. The girls portrayed in 3 Girls had none of those protective factors.
The similarities include vulnerability to grooming. SB appears to have been groomed by an older girl she admired. That happened to the other girls, being drawn in by an older girl who’d already succumbed to grooming.

Another thing these girls shared was not being seen as children, somehow being seen as making bad lifestyle choices

"How does Shamima' Begum differ from those girls abused in Rochdale?"

The girls in Rochdale didn't jump on a plane, travel to Syria, and join a terrorist organisation.

I’m tending to accept the Home Secretary and Court know more than I do so I accept the decision. This despite my empathy for a 15 year old who’d lived what most of us would see as a relatively sheltered life, who was groomed on line

SB’s three infants died but there are other children in these camps. I’m not sure that sending them back to their mother’s country of origin is better for them than staying with their mothers. R

She is no longer a British citizen and she is now a very different person to the 15 year old girl, as we know from the information presented to the Home Secretary and the court by the security services. Remember the HS saying ‘if you knew what I know’? No, there is no room for forgiveness when that would put at risk our lives and those of our loved ones.