Never one to shy away from the controversial this opinionated potato is now contemplating the Shamima Begum case...here's a few sources to get started:
- Plea for return: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47260916
- Block return: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/shamima-begum-isis-bride-latest-uk-return-home-secretary-sajid-javid-syria-a8780401.html
- Could face prosecution: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47237051
- Has given birth: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/17/shamima-begum-who-fled-uk-to-join-isis-has-given-birth-say-family
Quick summary: Shamima Begum is a 19 year old British national who,
having been indoctrinated, ran off (age 15) to support IS in Syria
(as a jihadi bride). At 9 months pregnant with her third child
(her older two having recently died) she made headlines
for wanting to come home...despite still holding IS sympathies.
This has understandably provoked strong negative reactions.
But lets have a proper look at this, shall we?
First of all, does the UK even have the right or power to strip a citizen of that status?
Begum is believed to be a British-born citizen, which in the past would have prevented the Government from stripping her of her nationality.
Only dual-nationals or those who had become British citizens— known as “naturalisation” — could be hit with “deprivation orders” removing their UK status.
It emerged the legal test to exclude the wife of an ISIS fighter from the UK is whether she is eligible to claim citizenship elsewhere. Her parents are from Bangladesh — raising the bar to re-entry here.
(Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8431345/jihadi-bride-exclusion-british-citizenship/)
I am decidedly dubious about this. Just because someone could potentially claim citizenship elsewhere doesn't mean that they should be obliged to...or that the other nation is obliged to take them surely? It can't be right to deliberately render someone stateless.
If Shamima's parents are indeed Bangladeshi she might've been entitled to automatic citizenship as a child...but she is not a child now. And are the parents STILL Bangladeshi or did they surrender their citizenship? Can Bangladesh be forced to take her? And does Shamima even have any links to the country?! There's also the point that her husband is a Dutch national; surely THAT claim would supersede her parents origins.
One of the most disgusting things about deportation and 'repatriation' is the idea that someone can just go live in a country because they (or in this case their parents) were born there like they necessarily know anything about the language or the law or the culture of that place. We've found this 'logic' abhorrent in terms of the Windrush scandal. If anything we belong to the place(s) we were raised, the places we know - this idea of belonging to your ancestral nation smacks of the racist phrase "go back where you came from", whether anyone likes it or not she came from the UK.
If Shamima's parents are indeed Bangladeshi she might've been entitled to automatic citizenship as a child...but she is not a child now. And are the parents STILL Bangladeshi or did they surrender their citizenship? Can Bangladesh be forced to take her? And does Shamima even have any links to the country?! There's also the point that her husband is a Dutch national; surely THAT claim would supersede her parents origins.
One of the most disgusting things about deportation and 'repatriation' is the idea that someone can just go live in a country because they (or in this case their parents) were born there like they necessarily know anything about the language or the law or the culture of that place. We've found this 'logic' abhorrent in terms of the Windrush scandal. If anything we belong to the place(s) we were raised, the places we know - this idea of belonging to your ancestral nation smacks of the racist phrase "go back where you came from", whether anyone likes it or not she came from the UK.
Secondly the use of emotive and prejudicial language: a line in The Sun article cited above (about her desire to return to the UK) starts "shameless Shamima Begum whined..." EXCUSE ME? There's not even an effort toward impartiality here. Shameless? Right or wrong should she be obliged to express shame for her beliefs? Obviously I'm not gonna defend IS but "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" - it all just depends on your viewpoint.
Condemning people on their actions is one thing but condemning them on their ideologies just increases feelings of disenfranchisement and people feeling marginalised and oppressed leads inevitably to more crime, civil unrest and violence.
Are sympathisers inherently evil? I don't think so. Every conflict in history has sympathisers on both sides. Also, she hasn't even undergone any de-radicalisation as yet. Whining? She's a bereaved young woman who has been through more in the last 4 years than most of us will endure in a lifetime. And we whine when the wifi is slow. A bit of perspective here would go a long way.
Condemning people on their actions is one thing but condemning them on their ideologies just increases feelings of disenfranchisement and people feeling marginalised and oppressed leads inevitably to more crime, civil unrest and violence.
Are sympathisers inherently evil? I don't think so. Every conflict in history has sympathisers on both sides. Also, she hasn't even undergone any de-radicalisation as yet. Whining? She's a bereaved young woman who has been through more in the last 4 years than most of us will endure in a lifetime. And we whine when the wifi is slow. A bit of perspective here would go a long way.
Thirdly, her age. She was 15 when she ran away, lots of 15 year olds run away from home. If they turned up again four years later how would we judge parents who did not welcome them home with open arms? Here we talking about a nation refusing to allow her home to her family. IF she is tried for crimes she will have to face charges as a minor - unless they can prove any of her actions since turning 18 was criminal.
The lack of understanding that she is a young woman who, whatever she may have done, was still legally a child when this situation started and she has had little chance to address. Frankly I'm astonished - can people not remember the shit they got up to in their teens? Can they not imagine having a teenage daughter they'd want treated fairly but with sympathy? I'm not one for fuzzy maternal feelings - if my kid got up to no good I'd expect them to face the consequences...but not this mob mentality.
The lack of understanding that she is a young woman who, whatever she may have done, was still legally a child when this situation started and she has had little chance to address. Frankly I'm astonished - can people not remember the shit they got up to in their teens? Can they not imagine having a teenage daughter they'd want treated fairly but with sympathy? I'm not one for fuzzy maternal feelings - if my kid got up to no good I'd expect them to face the consequences...but not this mob mentality.
Fourthly, the assumption of criminality. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't recall British citizens being ousted for having sympathies with the IRA in the not-so-distant past. If people are to be persecuted for their politics it at least ought to apply equally to all terrorist organisations.
Shamima left the UK to be a jihadi BRIDE, not (so far as anyone seems to have any evidence of as yet) to take part in any terrorist activities. Perhaps she can be charged as an accessory but that requires due process, courts, a war crimes tribunal perhaps. Stripping her citizenship is at the very least premature if she has not been convicted of anything.
Shamima left the UK to be a jihadi BRIDE, not (so far as anyone seems to have any evidence of as yet) to take part in any terrorist activities. Perhaps she can be charged as an accessory but that requires due process, courts, a war crimes tribunal perhaps. Stripping her citizenship is at the very least premature if she has not been convicted of anything.
Fifthly the rights of her child and her concerns as a parent.
One of the stupidest claims I saw argued (before her new son was born) was that she wanted to come back to give birth on the NHS. How dumb are people?! At nine months pregnant that was NEVER an option. She could neither have flown nor endured an overland journey.
A woman who has lost two children is going to be quite reasonably terrified for the wellbeing of her child. If she will risk coming home and facing prosecution and / or being stripped of custody of that child in order to ensure it's survival why should that be frowned upon?!
The child is born of a British mother and a Dutch father - he is an EU citizen, not a Syrian. Should he not have a right to life regardless of his parentage? There is enough criticism of EU nations not taking in Syrian refugee children - rejecting a child who has every right to be here is beyond the pale.
Shamima's second child, her son Jarah, died aged 8 months in December 2018 of malnutrition; her elder child, daughter Sarayah, died in January 2019 aged 21 months. Losing a child is generally held to be one of the worst things that can happen to you; losing two so closely together must be beyond words. Losing your existing children when you are pregnant with another must be terrifying. Losing your children when you are little more than a child yourself...well, I would have imagined that people could stretch to a little more empathy.
I shouldn't be astonished at how judgmental people are...humans are, in my humble opinion, bloody awful. Maybe Shamima Begum is an exceptionally awful person but everyone deserves a fair hearing and the chance of redemption. It says a lot about a society that we seem to be collectively willing to condemn her without trial...and to leave her child in danger. Perhaps there would be a security risk allowing her home but we have procedures in place for that. Even if she'd been a mature adult when she went out there she is just as deserving of justice through due process as anyone else; the child should not suffer for his parents mistakes.
UPDATE
Predictably Bangladesh denied she had any right to citizenship and the Netherlands (her husband's nation) blocked her too. This means that the UK had indeed made her illegally stateless - in all honesty, revoking someone's citizenship BEFORE an alternative citizenship has been set up is always going to be wrong.
On March 8th news broke that Shamima's third child - a two week old son named Jarrah after her firstborn - had died.
Given the predominant public opinion of her case I expected comments condemning her, calling it 'karma', maybe even saying her kid was better off dead than with her as a mother...
THREE CHILDREN DEAD is beyond anything most of us can imagine, and in three separate incidents in the space of three months is just too awful contemplate. No mother deserves that; no child deserves to die.
I was fully gearing up to unfollow people for the comments I expected to see, given the opinions expressed earlier in the case.
Actually, public opinion has swung about and the gov't - especially Sajid Javid - Home Secretary (Conservative) who took the decision - are now being heavily criticised for their harsh action. This only annoys me more because this was a predictable outcome. It was a bad call before a child died, and he may have died anyway, but the failure to see Shamima FROM THE OUTSET as a vulnerable young woman who needs help, rehabilitation and justice - for what she has done and what has been done to her - utterly appals me.
A tweet from Anna Soubry - MP for Broxtowe (Liberal Party):
I shouldn't be astonished at how judgmental people are...humans are, in my humble opinion, bloody awful. Maybe Shamima Begum is an exceptionally awful person but everyone deserves a fair hearing and the chance of redemption. It says a lot about a society that we seem to be collectively willing to condemn her without trial...and to leave her child in danger. Perhaps there would be a security risk allowing her home but we have procedures in place for that. Even if she'd been a mature adult when she went out there she is just as deserving of justice through due process as anyone else; the child should not suffer for his parents mistakes.
UPDATE
Predictably Bangladesh denied she had any right to citizenship and the Netherlands (her husband's nation) blocked her too. This means that the UK had indeed made her illegally stateless - in all honesty, revoking someone's citizenship BEFORE an alternative citizenship has been set up is always going to be wrong.
On March 8th news broke that Shamima's third child - a two week old son named Jarrah after her firstborn - had died.
Given the predominant public opinion of her case I expected comments condemning her, calling it 'karma', maybe even saying her kid was better off dead than with her as a mother...
THREE CHILDREN DEAD is beyond anything most of us can imagine, and in three separate incidents in the space of three months is just too awful contemplate. No mother deserves that; no child deserves to die.
I was fully gearing up to unfollow people for the comments I expected to see, given the opinions expressed earlier in the case.
Actually, public opinion has swung about and the gov't - especially Sajid Javid - Home Secretary (Conservative) who took the decision - are now being heavily criticised for their harsh action. This only annoys me more because this was a predictable outcome. It was a bad call before a child died, and he may have died anyway, but the failure to see Shamima FROM THE OUTSET as a vulnerable young woman who needs help, rehabilitation and justice - for what she has done and what has been done to her - utterly appals me.
A tweet from Anna Soubry - MP for Broxtowe (Liberal Party):
"It was wrong to take away Shamima Begum's British citizenship
in the first place @sajidjavid must now restore it
& she must be able to come home.
Shamima Begum is our responsibility
whatever she may or may not have done
however abhorrent her views"
A tweet from Twitter user @0Calamity:
"I don't care how unpopular this will make me.
Shamima Begum was groomed as a 15 yr old,
and after, effectively, being a sex-slave, has now lost her third child. And our govt.'s response is to persecute her
instead of seeking to rehabilitate her. Hard to find words."
The top listed response to this (from @MickDavies1968) reads:
"It shows the sorry state of this country
that you felt the need to include your first sentence."
And that is absolutely it - where the hell are we if the perceived unpopular opinion is one of compassion and the hope of redemption??? Why did it take the death of her third child to change public opinion?!