Shemima Begum

Oldwoman70

It seems OK to judge some people in the "Court of Public Opinion" but not others. How many of those accusing others of judging Shemima Begum without proof, have happily joined in the threads attacking Harry and Meghan

Prince Andrew? I haven’t seen much complaining about the court of public opinion when he’s being judged and branded a paedophile on GN.

We are a forum of grans -or not, posting our points of view, our feelings and what we think should be happening.
We can disagree or agree, or say how dangerous something is. We can even say we are asking for something to be done, but unless we are actively out there doing something about it, we’re still just a forum of grans.

Mollygo

tickingbird, that’s the main problem on GN. We are a forum of grans posting our own points of view. Sometimes, as in real life we think others are right or wrong, and under the cover of a pseudonym, we can say so, calmly or dramatically or even with vitriol!

Not all of us are offering an opinion. We are asking for a court of law to provide a legal one. Many of us are very aware that we do not know the facts. If we are not to take away one persons human rights that is what we need. If she is as some describe and that breaks the law I think we all accept that some form of justice is needed. What that will be is not offered as an opinion by many either; only by some.

The problem with taking away any one persons human rights is that it becomes a slippery slope.

It seems OK to judge some people in the "Court of Public Opinion" but not others. How many of those accusing others of judging Shemima Begum without proof, have happily joined in the threads attacking Harry and Meghan.

And not one of us has access to ALL the information required to make such a decision. So yes, just points of view.

tickingbird, that’s the main problem on GN. We are a forum of grans posting our own points of view. Sometimes, as in real life we think others are right or wrong, and under the cover of a pseudonym, we can say so, calmly or dramatically or even with vitriol!

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

We aren’t dealing with the court of public opinion though; it’s The Supreme Court. The highest court in the land.

foxie48

tickingbird my understanding is that the Supreme Court initially over ruled the govt, then changed on appeal of national security but SB can appeal that verdict and the current situation is one of being paused until a way can be found for her to represent her case. If the Supreme court over rules her appeal, then that will be that but I will still feel very uncomfortable about this particular situation. Anyone who works in schools or has contact with children will have undertaken Safeguarding training and will have some knowledge with regard to the "Prevent" programme. This programme recognises the extent to which vulnerable children can be groomed into terrorist organisations. In the future it might mean that any child groomed in this way is not seen as a victim but as a risk to national security and stripped of their nationality. I worry that this would be a step too far.

Foxie, you put is so well.

In the Court of Public Opinion there are no rules of evidence, no burdens of proof, no cross-examinations, and no standards of admissibility. There are no questions and also no answers. Also, please be aware that in the Court of Public Opinion, choosing silence or doubt is itself a prosecutable offense…the Court of Public Opinion is what we used to call villagers with flaming torches. It has no rules, no arbiter, no mechanism at all for separating truth from lies. It allows everything into evidence and has no mechanism to separate facts about the case from the experiences and political leanings of the millions of us who are all acting as witnesses, judges, and jurors.

[source: Dahlia Lithwick “Woody Allen v. Dylan Farrow: The Court of Public Opinion is now in session.”]

I suppose what bothers me most is that once a child is seen as in danger of being radicalised, then they are seen as vulnerable and in need of counselling, support and monitoring. SB's school had concerns that she was being radicalised but unfortunately no action was taken. If they are not prevented from leaving the country and fly to Turkey, they are met by an ISIS contact, they then effectively lose their autonomy and at that point will be seen as a terrorist. I don't know what made these girls decide to go to Syria. Perhaps along side the grooming there were family pressures related to an arranged marriage, who knows? Once in Syria, all three girls would have lost any opportunity to change their mind and return to the UK. They did what they had to to survive and SB is a survivor. At what point did she stop being a vulnerable child and become a danger to the state? tbh I think she was more vulnerable once she reached Syria than she was in the UK because by then she had no chance of changing her mind and was effectively under the control of ISIS.

tickingbird "Basically the SC have said she can have a fair hearing in court but that she has no right to return here in order to do so. Whether it can be done some other way remains to be seen"

She has lawyers in this country to represent her - she could "attend" via Zoom or some other secure internet platform. Many trials have been conducted via Zoom in the last couple of years

Initially she challenged Mr Javid’s decision before the Special Immigration Appeal Commission. The commission ruled against her, finding the Home Secretary was allowed to remove her citizenship. She then appealed to the Court of Appeal. The C of A ordered that Begum must be allowed to return to appeal against the decision to remove her nationality. This ruling by the C of A was then appealed in the Supreme Court. The SC then decided she does not have the right to return in order to appeal against the decision to deprive her of citizenship. The SC found that the SIAC had applied the correct standards when reviewing her earlier appeal. The SC also held that the C of A should have given greater respect to the national security assessment of the Home Secretary.

Basically the SC have said she can have a fair hearing in court but that she has no right to return here in order to do so. Whether it can be done some other way remains to be seen.

foxie48

tickingbird my understanding is that the Supreme Court initially over ruled the govt, then changed on appeal of national security but SB can appeal that verdict and the current situation is one of being paused until a way can be found for her to represent her case. If the Supreme court over rules her appeal, then that will be that but I will still feel very uncomfortable about this particular situation. Anyone who works in schools or has contact with children will have undertaken Safeguarding training and will have some knowledge with regard to the "Prevent" programme. This programme recognises the extent to which vulnerable children can be groomed into terrorist organisations. In the future it might mean that any child groomed in this way is not seen as a victim but as a risk to national security and stripped of their nationality. I worry that this would be a step too far.

Well said

Yes that was a safeguarding failure because she was 15, that's the point some of us are making.

The one thing I do find inexcusable is the school giving HER the letter warning her parents of the danger she was becoming radicalised. Obviously she destroyed it. It’s this kind of naiveté that concerns me.

Yes I feel it's very dangerous in terms of child safeguarding, as once you say she knew what she was doing in terms of someone being groomed you set a very dangerous precedent.

tickingbird my understanding is that the Supreme Court initially over ruled the govt, then changed on appeal of national security but SB can appeal that verdict and the current situation is one of being paused until a way can be found for her to represent her case. If the Supreme court over rules her appeal, then that will be that but I will still feel very uncomfortable about this particular situation. Anyone who works in schools or has contact with children will have undertaken Safeguarding training and will have some knowledge with regard to the "Prevent" programme. This programme recognises the extent to which vulnerable children can be groomed into terrorist organisations. In the future it might mean that any child groomed in this way is not seen as a victim but as a risk to national security and stripped of their nationality. I worry that this would be a step too far.

PippaZ

Oldwoman70

Saying she didn't know what ISIS was like goes against her claim she was "groomed" by the various websites, some of which would show the atrocities. These websites would not be easy to find so why did she seek them out? If she had questions why not discuss them with her local Imam, parents or other adults?

I have no doubt she knew exactly what ISIS was about and is still a supporter who, if allowed back, will attempt to indoctrinate other young people.

You are not a lawyer or a judge. You have not seen the evidence properly presented. You (and I) are not in a position to decide. Whether you "think" Shemima Begum "knew about Isis" or not is irrelevant. She should not lose her human rights to be tried by a court of law whatever all the Oldwoman70s of this country think. The general public is not "fit and proper" to decide your future, my future or Shemima Begum's future concerning a legal issue. She needs to be brought back and allowed to put her case. Whether she wins or not should be decided by that law and not by the likes of you and me on Gransnet.

I have an opinion and am as entitled to voice it as you or anyone else. Anyone who claims the Manchester bombing was "justified" has, in my opinion, not changed their mind about the organisation they joined

We have the rule of law, not the rule of the mob. Some of what we are reading on this thread sounds like the stirring up of a rabble. The law is what matters. If we allow our government to act outside the law, we weaken our position in the future and that of others who may be our family in future circumstances.

In that case you have no problem with the ruling by The Supreme Court then?

Whitewavemark2

We need to be the bigger person by treating her correctly ensuring her human rights are maintained and that she is given a fair trial.

We aren’t ISIS or the Taliban.

We should know how to behave towards another human being.

Exactly. I'm not sure just how much the law would be interested in whether her children died or not. People might take it into account because it is what she had to go through. After all, her radicalisation took place here. Added to that, the system here, which should have helped her, didn't act even though they knew the danger the child was in.

We have the rule of law, not the rule of the mob. Some of what we are reading on this thread sounds like the stirring up of a rabble. The law is what matters. If we allow our government to act outside the law, we weaken our position in the future and that of others who may be our family in future circumstances.

Shemima Begum's former lawyer has been subjected to death threats and threats of violence since representing her, as well as a young man targeted by Tommy Robinson. I suppose being told his allegiance isn't to the UK is kind of like those judges being told they were the enemies of the people.

I see international affairs expert Ulrike Johnson has made deep and insightful comments about the situation. How lucky we are that the press ferrets out such important things on our behalf.

We need to be the bigger person by treating her correctly ensuring her human rights are maintained and that she is given a fair trial.

We aren’t ISIS or the Taliban.

We should know how to behave towards another human being.

Foxie48 Much in your post is wrong. She didn’t have 4 children and 3 die, therefore leaving 1 alive. I believe she had 3 but there’s debate over the third which she was holding when she was first interviewed. Although conditions over there aren’t ideal, no reason was given for these infant deaths. Her husband isn’t ‘a much older man’ either and he isn’t dead.

Her so called change of heart came about when she realised her story hadn’t gone down well over here. She is now dressed in western clothing, complete with make up. Her human rights lawyer tweeted “the boys are back in town” when The Taliban took over Kabul. Pretty obvious his allegiance isn’t to the UK but he makes a good living here. I’d like to know who is paying his fees as, surely if she is no longer a UK citizen, our government isn’t. As she quite obviously has people behind her, advising and supplying money, I’d like to know who they are and if they’re from any organisation.

As it stands I believe she’s a threat to the UK. After revisiting the horrors of 9/11 last week on the 20th anniversary I think the danger posed by such people needs to be taken very seriously. I back Sajid Javid on this and I hope he stands firm.

I don't know Shemima Begun, I know nothing about her family or her upbringing and how this relates to her culture. I don't know why she chose to go to Syria or actually what happened to her when she was there apart from the fact that at 15 she was married to a much older man, bore 4 children and had 3 of them die, had her husband die, that of the 2 friends that went with her, 1 is dead and the other is missing. I've seen her in the media dressed in the hijab and western clothes, I don't know which was her choice and which was the decision made by others. Basically we ALL know very little about what has happened to her and I believe it was wrong to take away her nationality and leave her stateless. Let her come back to the UK and face the consequences of her actions. FWIW those of you who conflate this standpoint with a lack of sympathy for all those innocent people who have suffered at the hands of ISIS are WRONG. The two things are completely separate.