Shamima Begum - trafficked, or terrorist?

I agree, total contrast with this case.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63736944

I have long felt deeply uncomfortable about the removal of her citizenship. I too share the view that race played a factor in that decision. If she is a terrorist, I cannot see how removal of her citizenship makes anyone safer.

Irrespective of whether she was trafficked or is a terrorist, she has lived her whole life in UK and is therefore our victim to care for / terrorist to keep society safe from (delete as appropriate).

Groomed and trafficked.  she is a victim

I think its a bit of both. I do think there are questions for her family as to why she was flown out there in the first place. As usual we get the 2 polarised views of innocent victim and hardened terrorist. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the 2 extremes

I do think there are questions for her family as to why she was flown out there in the first place.

They didn't know the girls were going, the girls basically ran away (after being groomed online).

I would go with groomed but also what terrorism has she been involved in?

I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the 2 extremes

Most likely. But she is a British problem and should be here to face the consequences of her misguided actions. Removing her nationality will be seen as illegal. It’s also petty in the extreme.

I think removing her nationality is a cheap populist trick and an embarrassment for the country. If she is suspected of any illegal activities she should be tried in this country in compliance to the rule of law. We can't just get rid of problems by brushing them under the carpet.

Groomed, and a victim. The issue is how we deal with her now.

We can't just revoke nationality. Do it for her, who else will we do it for when it suits?

She is a British citizen, British society and foreign policy led to her being groomed and the whole mess is for "us" to learn from.

She has suffered enough, no further punishment can be justified. Grant her citizenship, use her as an example of how badly these situations can turn out

The slightest hint of continued support for terrorism, she gets prosecuted in the UK under the relevant offences.

Even if she's not a victim (I think she is) we should be collecting her and putting her on trial as a British citizen in her own country. It's our 'mess' we should deal with it.

We can’t just revoke nationality. Do it for her, who else will we do it for when it suits?

Its obvious that the direction of travel is for UK Citizenship to be able to be withdrawn at the stroke of the Home Secretaries pen, or more likely a junior Home Office official.

This lot just don't see why they should be encumbered by any obligations under international law and just want to do what the hell they like on a whim to suit their many predjudices

Its obvious that the direction of travel is for UK Citizenship to be able to be withdrawn at the stroke of the Home Secretaries pen, or more likely a junior Home Office official.

I keep banging on about it but Fake Law by the Secret Barrister is an eye opening look at how everybody's rights have been eroded by pandering to populist/racist opinion.

Agree with all of the above. Groomed and taken advantage of, possibly has terrorism charges to be investigated but is British and should be allowed back to her country to face whatever the law deems necessary.

Why should we expect any other country to look after one of our own, especially when the very same people who froth at the mouth about this lass want all forin, iligal, imigrunts drowning in the channel rather than do the same for them.

It's because she's the wrong colour, isn't it?

I am heartened to see the universal sensible/balanced view of all the commentators here.

I also think she should return as a British citizen,  and be looked after in whatever manner experts in the field deem appropriate.

Groomed and trafficked. she is a victim

Absolutely. And then further abused to score political points for the Home Secretary.

We can’t just revoke nationality. Do it for her, who else will we do it for when it suits?

Hopefully Boris Johnson (born in the USA), Priti Patel & Suella Braverman (both with parents born abroad).

But absolutely agree with the OP.

From what I have read ( if you believe it) is that hundreds have come back to the UK after the collapse of ISIS.
I think they are just using her as a distraction to satisfy the public that the government are actively doing something about the "problem".

Radio 4 now if you’re interested.

And then further abused to score political points for by the Home Secretary.

I thought the decision was shameful to us as a country.

I thought the decision was shameful to us as a country.

Just one more for the list.

I thought the decision was shameful to us as a country.

Absolutely.

Lazy, populist, illegal, fails to address any actual issues,but whipped up right wing support.

It's the Tory way.

Clearly groomed and trafficked as a child.
If she had been white, men in balaclavas would have been kicking in doors to find her.
If she has committed crimes as a adult then we/uk need to sort out our own mess.
She's no more dangerous than any adult male who left to UK to join ISIS and has returned to the UK
Just a convenient figure to get in to a gammon froth about.

has terrorism charges to be investigated but is British and should be allowed

Lesser of two evils for ease. Stripping her of nationality means that if there were an unrealistic chance of prosecution after a subsequent investigation, the government wouldn't have to answer difficuot questions from those baying for her blood.

It's genius politicking and abhorrent all at the same time.

I am heartened to see the universal sensible/balanced view of all the commentators here.

Well it is an echo chamber after all 🙂 How come anyone who agrees with what the government has done is not posting, is it because of those big hitters that ruin all the threads?

Lazy, populist, illegal, fails to address any actual issues,but whipped up right wing support.

All of that.  If she was rich, white and could pretend she could supply PPE we'd just slap her wrist and let her go off on holiday

In spite of them being Jacob Rees-Mogg's usual scapegoat (deployed yesterday re the photo with Mr Johnson edited out) - I doubt a Junior Official was anywhere near this decision. Unless they bought it a cup of tea or photocopied some papers for it.

Groomed. Victim. Later on terrorist. Perhaps. I don't know. But, 15 FFS, as stated above.

UK citizen. Should be investigated here, if deemed necessary.

Revoking citizenship was a shameful move for a democracy.

Thia former children's minister Tim Loughton in the BBC article sounds like a right prick. What 15 year old didn't get into daft ideas and beliefs - that's the beauty of being young. Many of us were only 1 or 2 stupid decisions away from messing our lives up like this case.

Even if she’s not a victim (I think she is) we should be collecting her and putting her on trial as a British citizen in her own country. It’s our ‘mess’ we should deal with it.

Exactly Nick. I have absolutely no doubt that if is was white and had an English name she would have been treated totally different.

Great Train Robber Ronnie Biggs was never stripped of his nationality, he wasn't told to apply for Brazilian nationality. He was allowed to return to the UK even if it meant facing justice. In fact the UK government was determined that he should return.

Winds me up big time.

She was influenced as a child, trafficked and coerced by terrorists.

She should not have had her citizenship revoked, however we should seek to both support her and hold her to account for her past, and if needed, future behaviour.

If she was rich, white and could pretend she could supply PPE we’d just slap her wrist and let her go off on holiday

Just as a counterpoint, how many of the above have been off supporting ISIS, had children by/for them and have been banned from returning?

I know 'we' keep saying 'but but, what if...' but there aren't any real examples are there?

AIUI, the age of Criminal Responsibility in the UK is 10? Assuming correct, of course she should be tried here under the Rule of Law for any crimes she has committed.

Arbitrarily removing citizenship is the other end of the Rwandan thin wedge - policies made up on the hoof to satisfy the hard of thinking masses.

Oh goody, another STW virtue signalling “I hate racism more than anybody!” Thread.

Does seem a bit harsh to be fair, but perhaps she’s being sacrificed as a deterrent for others thinking of doing this.

Just thinking of alternatives to the ‘tories hate brown people’ standard response.

Daft impressionable young lass who has no doubt learned her lesson, has been punished, and poses no further threat to the uk. I agree if she was white we wouldn’t be having this conversation

Well it is an echo chamber after all 🙂 How come anyone who agrees with what the government has done is not posting, is it because of those big hitters that ruin all the threads?

Fair point.

Agree with everything posted above, but she should also be held to account for any activities she did that could be considered terrorist.
It may be that the grooming is the fundamental cause of any subsequent terrorist activities, but it should all be investigated. (And by that I mean she is very likely to be not guilty in my view, but it should be fairly investigated)

I guess, we don't really know if she was groomed or whether it was just a silly teenage decision. If it was the latter, then she will definitely have a case to answer for.

and poses no further threat to the uk

Sorry TP, you know this how? Because she's said so...?

As above, she should be tried and if found guilty, punished for her crimes not lauded as a poor misunderstood child.

I guess, we don’t really know if she was groomed or whether it was just a silly teenage decision.

Well, we do, don't we.

Let's just take the terrorism thing out of of it for a sec. A fifteen year old girl (possibly younger when it started) is encouraged by people online to run away from home to travel abroad and marry someone she has never met. These people tell her exactly what to do, where to go, what she'll need, who will meet her, and how to cover her tracks. Persuade me as to how that is not grooming.

and poses no further threat to the uk

Because she’ll be on numerous watch lists for starters

She won’t be able to buy as much as a pen knife without eyes being raised

Victim, for sure.  Who knows whether or not she's since provided full information relating to who/how the grooming and trafficking occurred.

encouraged by people online to run away from home to travel abroad and marry someone she has never met. These people tell her exactly what to do, where to go, what she’ll need, who will meet her, and how to cover her tracks

If she was 18, all that would be 'advice'...

I don't buy the innocence/grooming angle. At best, she was, a bit gullible but no victim.

Because she’ll be on numerous watch lists for starters

So 'someone' has to be on her 24/7 to ensure she's reformed? Is that reasonable?

I guess, we don’t really know if she was groomed or whether it was just a silly teenage decision. If it was the latter, then she will definitely have a case to answer for.

Although I think most would agree that loss of citizenship would not be proportionate to that case.

At best, she was, a bit gullible but no victim.

Don’t grooming and gullible go hand in hand?

I don’t buy the innocence/grooming angle. At best, she was, a bit gullible but no victim.

Groomed for two years by strangers before she left at 15 to go to a war zone and have sex with strangers? That goes a bit further than "a bit gullible", for me.

Of course, the kicker is that by arbitraily removing her citizenship, she won't face charges whilst stateless.

Her case is the tip of an iceberg with hundreds of Europena citizens still stuck in camps. Hundreds of French citizens, half of them children, Norwegians, Dutch, and they haven't even been stripped of their nationality, it's just no effort is being made otheir behalf. A few children for each country have made it back but many more remain. Remarkably, Russia, Turkey and Kosovo are cited as examples that if there's a will to repatriate it's possible.

I'm not convinced she's a complete victim in all this, groomed or not she made decisions and did things and needs to be held accountable for those actions. However my 'opinion' is completely irrelevant and it should be for the courts to decide on the rights and wrongs of all that plus whatever deterrent message is applicable.

Citizenship is much wider and under no circumstances should her citizenship have been revoked, you can't make someone stateless.

Rules need to applied consistently to all citizens, political intervention should be rare to non-existent in individual cases. If the politicians don't like the decisions the courts are making they need to amend the laws.

Just as a counterpoint, how many of the above have been off supporting ISIS, had children by/for them and have been banned from returning?

My example was silly of course but the point was that if you are rich enough you can do any amount of damage to the country you like and no-one is removing your citizenship.

Don’t grooming and gullible go hand in hand?

Careful. There is fine line between statements like that and victim blaming. Are sex abuse victims in public schools / families / sports clubs a bit gullible?

@stumpyjon 100%

Careful. There is fine line between statements like that and victim blaming. Are sex abuse victims in public schools / families / sports clubs a bit gullible?

Exactly

Oh and 'groomed' says who? The person trying to get their citizenship reinstated?

The old 'actions speak louder...' saying springs to mind. All this limp wristed hand wringing over this poor victim... No one really knows what preceded her trip and for how long. I wouldn't trust either her or the authorities versions as both are unreliable and the rest of us - just don't know.

Voluntarily buggering off to shag/marry/have children with ISIS at 15 is no accident and she should be held accountable within the law.

Careful. There is fine line between statements like that and victim blaming. Are sex abuse victims in public schools / families / sports clubs a bit gullible?

No, but that’s not the case here is it?

She’s been in contact with bad people who she has been horribly misled by. She wasn’t forced into anything, however she’s been tricked/misled/whatever you want to call it into going along with that, the very definition of gullible. Calling that out isn’t victim blaming

I’m not suggesting Being gullible means she deserved to end up as she did.

Edit…removed the word ‘doesn’t’!!

Gullible or impressionable?

Hence why we don't allow 15 yo to make very many decisions.

Victim or no, we'll never truly know because there is no investigation and then either subsequent charges for criminality or support for someone groomed and all that entails.

Ironically the current sanction could push someone back into the arms of an organisation like ISIS.

Groomed for sure, gullible - maybe (aren't all kids a bit gullible, or do we say impressionable when it suits better?), a terrorist / member of a terrorist organisation - don't know. I mean, she has said that she joined IS, but in the same way as we assess an individual's competence to take responsibility for their actions in a criminal trial, we should be doing the same here and trying to determine how much was her own free choice and did she really understand the choices she was making.

But we don't do that by stripping of citizenship and leaving her in limbo.

If she was 18, all that would be ‘advice’…

But she wasn't.

going along with that, the very definition of gullible. Calling that out isn’t victim blaming

I’m not suggesting Being gullible doesn’t mean she deserved to end up as she did

Absolutely. Otherwise everyone could pull that trick. A grown up version of 'he made me do it'...

Gullibility does not negate responsibility and most 15 year olds are well aware of the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. 5 maybe not, 15 absolutely.

Maybe she deserves a day in court, but moving to render her stateless for decisions taken prior to her GCSEs seems slightly high on the sentencing scale.

If she was 18, all that would be ‘advice’…

But she wasn’t

No she wasn't. And she doesn't get a free pass at 15 which is over the age of Criminal responsibility AIUI.

I don't know whether she's a victim or a terrorist, but I do know she's British and she's therefore our problem.

She should be returned to the UK and dealt with appropriately here (either with sympathy or prosecution), not left in Syria because she's brown.

It was an entirely racist decision to remove her citizenship, as if that is something in the gift of the government for people who are born here legally.

It's outrageous.

Se was 15, and society failed her. At what age do the knew-what-she-was-doing hard right wingers on here (because they are, we know that much) think someone should be held entirely responsible for their actions. I see the 6-year-old American has been locked up. Perhaps they should be locking up the parents, the gun lobbyists, the politicians... but not the 6-year-old.

Voluntarily buggering off to shag/marry/have children with ISIS at 15

By law, you cannot voluntarily shag or marry at 15, as you're under the age of legal consent, by which we, as a society, are saying you are too young to make that decision.

We cannot say she is too young to make it, and also say that it's her fault for making it.

Gullibility does not negate responsibility and most 15 year olds are well aware of the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. 5 maybe not, 15 absolutely.

They are to a degree, but some are more impressionable than others

As for negating responsibility. It’s not as if she’s going to get away with a stern talking to and no pudding for tea. She’s spent the last 2 years in a hell hole, her baby has died and she’s probably going to be living with the repercussions of this for the rest of her life.

I think, as a 15 year old girl she’s been punished enough no?

I don't agree with removing her citizenship - why should we, a wealthy developed country dump our problems on other countries to sort out.
I think the UK Government should reinstate her citizenship, and tell her is she wants to present herself to border force she'll be dealt with by the courts, if she's done nothing wrong, and there is no case to answer it won't take long.

However I certainly don't think we should spend a penny or risk anyone else's lives going to retrieve her from Syria/wherever she is..

Something that just occurred to me and may be an elephant in the room. Her parents role in all this?  Were they traditional muslims?  I don't know but Islam tends imo to be a religion that pushes women into a subservient role and teaches them to obey men.  Did that play a part?

Or were her parents absent parents leaving her vulnerable?

Its just something I have not seen ( but not looked into at all)  but surely the parents have some role in all this and some culpability

By law, you cannot voluntarily shag or marry at 15

Not in this Country for sure. I don't think she did that here did she? I'm sure she did the buggering off bit here tho which she chose to do.

IHN I'm confused by your point, probly on account on my being a bit thick 🙃. Are you saying she can't be held accountable for actually doing the things she's not allowed to do because she's too young to do them in the UK?

her baby has died

She's had three children. They've all died.

Its just something I have not seen ( but not looked into at all) but surely the parents have some role in all this and some culpability

Careful TJ, that's all a bit victim-blamey too. How many parents know everything that they're teenage children are getting up to online?

IHN, sustained.

I’m not suggesting Being gullible doesn’t mean she deserved to end up as she did

That was a typo on my behalf, since edited. I removed the word ‘doesn’t’. Are you seriously suggesting being a gullible 15 year old deserves to get the punishment she has been given?

Just musings. Not victim blaming unless yo consider the parents to be victims as well

I don't know the family situation.  I'm just wondering how much family life payed a role

We are all products of our upbringing

a couple of white catholics I know recently found their 16-year-old son is being being groomed by older Muslims at school and gym club. It's kicked off somewhat... .

So I wouldn't assume anything about the parents, TJ. Edit: you've reposted with a moderation, all good.

Are you saying she can’t be held accountable for actually doing the things she’s not allowed to do because she’s too young to do them in the UK?

I'm saying that we, as a society, say that a 15 year old does not have the capacity to make the decision to consent to have sex (and, by extension, marry). So, anyone who sleeps with a 15 year old is, by definition, committing an act of rape as the 15 year cannot have given consent. Anyone who spends time online with a 15 year old for the purposes of persuading them to have sex/marry is, by definition, grooming them

So, for us, as a society, to say to her "you weren't groomed or raped, it's your fault for being persuaded to go and have sex/get married" is ridiculous.

Is it 'victim blaming'? Due to her current predicament no investigation can be held to ascertain if she is in fact a victim or a willing supporting participant in a death cult due to shit-housery by our elected 'betters'.

Trying to do the usual of silencing discussion amd musings by the use of pejorative phrases isn't helpful.

Many seem to speak with a confidence of facts they do not possess. Peak STW.

So I wouldn’t assume anything about the parents, TJ.

Im not.  I made it clear I don't know.  I'm asking questions

Discussing whether or not she was gullible/innocently sucked-in or knew exactly what she was doing - would be exactly the point of the trial that should be happening now.

I don't really have a strong opinion on "gullible/innocently sucked-in" VS "knew exactly what she was doing" (take THAT echo chamber!), but I do have a very strong opinion about what the government did.

Not only does it deliver (an extremely harsh - considering she didn't actually DO any terrorism) punishment to a minor without a trial, it does so just for the political "optics"..... just to keep the daily mail/express readers happy, who were baying for her blood. And yes, I absolutely do think there was a large element of race in that - as there inevitably seems to be in all things with respect to the Tory "Base".

I think what probably offended me most though was the feeling that the UK was just saying to the world "somebody else can deal with that", instead of viewing it as our own responsibility (which it clearly is).

Are you seriously suggesting being a gullible 15 year old deserves to get the punishment she has been given?

Is that for me?

If so, I'm suggesting she should be held accountable under the law for her actions. That means, reinstating her Citizenship which I don't accept the Govt has the right to remove (not revoke - it was never 'theirs' to issue in the first place).

Being 15 is a red herring for me. She may or may not be gullible/trafficked/groomed etc but that does not automatically get you a free pass. It need dealing with properly. As it would be if she stabbed a girl at school over some petty squabble. A full and proper investigation should (should) determine the circumstances which would inform next steps.

I’m saying that we, as a society

In the UK. We don't share our age ideals with all of the rest of the World...

If so, I’m suggesting she should be held accountable under the law for her actions. That means, reinstating her Citizenship which I don’t accept the Govt has the right to remove (not revoke – it was never ‘theirs’ to issue in the first place).

I don't think anyone here would disagree, but it's a seperate issue to the question of trafficked or terrorist.

It need dealing with properly. As it would be if she stabbed a girl at school over some petty squabble. A full and proper investigation should (should) determine the circumstances which would inform next steps.

I think everyone here probably agrees with that?

*winces*

In the UK. We don’t share our age ideals with all of the rest of the World…

Okay, another thought experiment:

- a 15 year old is groomed online by someone she's never previously met and persuaded to go to, I dunno, Peterborough, to meet someone, who has sex with (i.e. rapes) her. This, by law (and I hope at least some of us agree), would be a bad thing, she would be a victim, he would be a rapist

- a 15 year old is groomed online by someone she's never previously met and persuaded to go abroad to, I dunno, Madeupland where the age of consent is 12, to meet someone, who has sex with her there. Technically it's not rape in Madeupland, but are you saying that she's now not a victim, and he gets away with it, all because it's geographically unfortunate?

It need dealing with properly. As it would be if she stabbed a girl at school over some petty squabble. A full and proper investigation should (should) determine the circumstances which would inform next steps.

I think everyone here probably agrees with that?

I'm not sure. As I read some of the posts up there^, because she's 15/gullible/trafficked/manipulated/a victim etc, she's not responsible for her actions.

She is and should be held accountable. Criminal Responsibility and the Age of Consent are two separate things and one doesn't get you a free pass with the other...

There's a pricipal in French law that French law applies to its citizens who are victims of crimes abroad no matter what the natinality of the criminal. Anything similar in the UK? By the same token French law applies to French sex tourists abroad.

So in your second case the rape would still be a crime, IHN. Any legal experts?