|
Post by juju on Feb 20, 2019 20:11:54 GMT
I'm not sure if anyone else is aware of this story, but it seems to be dominating in the UK.
Briefly, Shemima Begum is a Bangladeshi British citizen who ran off to Syria to join IS at the age of 15. Presumably she had been radicalised, possibly even groomed. She was married to an IS member and has just had a baby. Now (aged 19) she wants to come back to the UK, but in an interview she appeared to be pretty unrepentant. She now just had her citizenship revoked by the UK Foreign Office, and as you can imagine, many Brits online are having a field day about this - most people seem to think 'good riddance'.
I'm in two minds though. She may well now be stateless (Bangladesh has said it won't take her, either). She is a new mother with a newborn baby, still a teenager. If she is stateless this surely makes her and her baby extremely vulnerable. I think she *should* face consequences of course, but I'd rather those were here, where there may be a chance of de-radicalisation and rehabilitation, but that seems to be a minority view.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Feb 20, 2019 20:46:36 GMT
I've seen a 'clarification' that the baby is still British and has all due rights, because her passport was still OK at the time of the birth.
I don't know whether this is just another utterly evil Theresa May "hostile environment" attitude, or a quite reasonable British civil service action based on serious information which isn't public.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Feb 20, 2019 21:04:43 GMT
I've also heard that the British government may even be acting illegally in rendering her stateless. Apparently we signed up to some sort of convention many years ago that prevents us deliberately making any citizen stateless, and as you say, her baby is also a British citizen. I'd be very surprised if this wasn't overturned. And yes, I think Teresa May is pandering to the more hostile and extreme views these days. Sigh.
ETA: I would also caution taking Shemima's unrepentant interview with a pinch of salt - we don't know who she is still surrounded by and what danger she may be in if she renounces IS whilst her future is still uncertain.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 20, 2019 21:40:47 GMT
Last night, BBC Newsnight seemed pretty clear that Home Secretary, Sajid Javid was acting on legal advice that Bangladesh offered citizenship to everyone who had their roots in the country. On the surface of it, that meant Shamima Begum had the right to apply to Bangladesh for citizenship and that Bangladesh could not refuse. It seems that advice is now in doubt.
Irrespective of that, I believe Shamima Begum should be allowed back into the UK and should face trial. We are all citizens of the world, irrespective of which country we live in, and it is our responsibility to ensure that she is brought to justice, whether here or elsewhere. If she is tried in the UK and the Home Secretary believes she should be deported and can make a case for it, then that should be considered. But I seriously doubt that a case for deportation would be a possibility.
The mentality of getting rid of inconvenient problems is, in my opinion, immoral.
Some people say she has lost the right to live in the UK because of her actions. That reminds me of people who say they want to 'lock them up and throw away the key'. It smacks of vengeance and not justice. She needs to be tried in a court and her sentence must be appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Feb 21, 2019 18:26:41 GMT
It was on the Dutch news yesterday since apparently the dad is Dutch so now she wants to come to the Netherlands. Our government says that the baby is welcome but she is not since she still has the Bangladeshi citizenship. I thought her interview was confusing in the sense that she said she wants to give the baby a good chance in life and that's why she wants to leave IS. She is willing to wait for the dad to come out of prison, so she seems to really love him, but at the same time doesn't seem to see that she could be eligible for a prison sentence herself. After being asked about the decapitations she says she knew about them, but didn't care (since it didn't concern her life, my interpretation ). She sounded so young and, excuse me for saying this, extremely stupid. I don't know what to think. She will need to be thoroughly interviewed by a bunch of psychologists to figure out what her deal is before being allowed anywhere in public if you ask me though.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 22, 2019 6:58:45 GMT
She is not doing herself any favours, certainly. The best thing that she could have done for herself would have been to express remorse. But yes, I suppose it depends on the people that she is surrounded by.
|
|
Yuki
Senior members
Posts: 632
|
Post by Yuki on Feb 24, 2019 17:04:18 GMT
To be frank, I too would prefer if Morocco (and every other country) would strip people of their citizenship if they leave the country to join a terrorist organization.
I'm sure many here have heard of two Scandinavian young ladies who were raped and beheaded in Morocco, not long ago, by a terrorist cell that swore allegiance to ISIS. The leader of the cell had actually been in prison for two years for attempting to join ISIS in the past (and failing to do so). If they had let him go to Syria, and revoked his citizenship, he would have died or stayed there, and that tragedy would probably not have taken place.
Iraq and Syria are quite harsh in dealing with terrorists, and most of them, if caught, are sentenced to the death penalty. If countries set a precedent by stripping terrorists of their rights as citizens, a lot of people, especially idiots in their teens, will think a million times before they decide to launch their career in terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Feb 24, 2019 17:54:26 GMT
If countries set a precedent by stripping terrorists of their rights as citizens, a lot of people, especially idiots in their teens, will think a million times before they decide to launch their career in terrorism. No they won't. They are in their teens without a fully developed brain. By definition they don't realise or care for the consequences. Not only them, but research has shown more than once that the death penalty is not a deterrent, nor are harsh punishments.
|
|
Yuki
Senior members
Posts: 632
|
Post by Yuki on Feb 24, 2019 18:29:59 GMT
No they won't. They are in their teens without a fully developed brain. By definition they don't realise or care for the consequences. Some of them won't be deterred. Others might. Not only them, but research has shown more than once that the death penalty is not a deterrent, nor are harsh punishments. I didn't say the death penalty is the deterrent, I was simply stating the facts. I'm against the death penalty myself. The deterrent would be the knowledge that once you take that step, there's no going back. Also, as I pointed out with my example of the last attack in Morocco, security within your borders takes precedence. There are of course cases where terrorists have repented and changed their views 180 degrees, such as Maajid Nawaz in the UK and Abu Hafs in Morocco, both of whom have become liberal Muslims and big advocates for secularism, but these are rare cases (both of them however were not involved in acts of violence, and were mere advocates of terrorism). There's also a relatively famous Moroccan YouTuber (famous in Morocco that is), who at one point almost became a terrorist. He joined the fight in Bosnia, but the war was already over, so he went back (to Germany, where he lived back then), and years later started doubting his beliefs, and became an atheist. I think imprisonment is better to at least give them a chance to change their views, since for many of them the issue was either young age stupidity, or ideological brainwashing, and both can be solved with time and proper care. But I think it's best if they spend their sentence in the country where they caused damage.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 24, 2019 20:53:14 GMT
If a government strips a person of their rights, what claim does it have to represent humanity? But I think it's best if they spend their sentence in the country where they caused damage. Shemima Begum is guilty of desertion, she committed that crime when she stepped on to the plane in this country. She should therefore be tried in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Feb 25, 2019 17:55:20 GMT
No they won't. They are in their teens without a fully developed brain. By definition they don't realise or care for the consequences. Some of them won't be deterred. Others might. Not only them, but research has shown more than once that the death penalty is not a deterrent, nor are harsh punishments. I didn't say the death penalty is the deterrent, I was simply stating the facts. I'm against the death penalty myself. The deterrent would be the knowledge that once you take that step, there's no going back. Also, as I pointed out with my example of the last attack in Morocco, security within your borders takes precedence. There are of course cases where terrorists have repented and changed their views 180 degrees, such as Maajid Nawaz in the UK and Abu Hafs in Morocco, both of whom have become liberal Muslims and big advocates for secularism, but these are rare cases (both of them however were not involved in acts of violence, and were mere advocates of terrorism). There's also a relatively famous Moroccan YouTuber (famous in Morocco that is), who at one point almost became a terrorist. He joined the fight in Bosnia, but the war was already over, so he went back (to Germany, where he lived back then), and years later started doubting his beliefs, and became an atheist. I think imprisonment is better to at least give them a chance to change their views, since for many of them the issue was either young age stupidity, or ideological brainwashing, and both can be solved with time and proper care. But I think it's best if they spend their sentence in the country where they caused damage. That was not my point My point was that it doesn't matter what punishments or consequences you think up. Radicalisation won't be halted by such things, nor the decision to leave to fight in an ideological war.
|
|
Yuki
Senior members
Posts: 632
|
Post by Yuki on Feb 25, 2019 21:01:44 GMT
If a government strips a person of their rights, what claim does it have to represent humanity? Their rights as citizens, not as humans. I'm not a UK citizen. So for example the UK government does not grant me the right to enter the country, own property or have a UK passport. If I'm granted the right of entry, I still do not have other rights that citizens have, but my human rights would still be respected as long as I'm within the border of the UK. But I think it's best if they spend their sentence in the country where they caused damage. Shemima Begum is guilty of desertion, she committed that crime when she stepped on to the plane in this country. She should therefore be tried in the UK. Fair enough. I do not know the laws in the UK, and cannot judge on that particular case. I still think that Morocco should strip terrorists who left the country (who are proven to be terrorists with no shred of doubt) of the Moroccan citizenship, to avoid tragedies as the one that took place last December. Those who are arrested in the country for terrorist attempts, whether successful or not, for promoting terrorism or supporting it, should be tried.
|
|
Yuki
Senior members
Posts: 632
|
Post by Yuki on Feb 25, 2019 21:19:09 GMT
That was not my point My point was that it doesn't matter what punishments or consequences you think up. Radicalisation won't be halted by such things, nor the decision to leave to fight in an ideological war. Unless we're talking specifically about teenagers here (most of whom would be too impulsive to make a rational decision, but they don't make up a significant percentage of terrorists anyway), I think deterrents such as stripping citizenship and the prospect of facing a harsher judicial system would have an effect. People who are extremely unstable mentally, or are motivated by pure criminal impulses may be immune to deterrents, but most Islamic terrorists are not in these two categories. They are motivated by ideology, and what seems to them as rational grounds for holy war against the West. Also, nowhere did I mention that this was the most effective, much less the only, way to stop radicalization. I think the three ex-radicals I mentioned above and the work that they and other people like them are doing, are far more effective in fighting Islamic radicalism.
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Mar 21, 2019 3:27:42 GMT
One thing to consider is that if you strip someone of their citizenship and refuse to let them come back to their country, where will they go? If no country allows people who left to join ISIS entry, and there are say, 40,000 of them left with nowhere to go, and they are already a trained army, what you have is a trained army of terrorists, ready if they have arms or someone willing to arm them.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Mar 21, 2019 10:42:20 GMT
I don't believe in stripping people of citizenship - not while we live in a world where citizenship is necessary anyhow. If someone is granted citizenship, the idea that you can then just take it away disturbs me. Where would the line be drawn on what reasons you can or can't takes it away? If you take someone on as a state, then you keep them for better or worse.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Mar 21, 2019 16:53:15 GMT
I agree completely.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Mar 22, 2019 23:02:10 GMT
Yuki's point is a good one - this girl is a trained fighter. She might indeed be better off under strict supervision in the UK
|
|