British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[chilango]

Fuck you lawyers.

There was a serious point inderneund this

Regardless of the law, if people like this return to the UK, how do we as the communities they may live, work, school their kids in etc. react?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There was a serious point inderneund this

Regardless of the law, if people like this return to the UK, how do we as the communities they may live, work, school their kids in etc. react?

Well given the law, she faces a jail term here and losing her child for good. When she comes out of jail, we can't know how she might have changed or what kind of danger she might present, but I'm not sure that's so different from other people leaving prison after serving sentences for nasty things. I think there's a danger of making too much of this.

 

[eoin_k]

Looks like the Shakil case sets that sort of precedent, although I imagine this a better articulated version of the defence I tried to run could work in the right case. Shakil's social media activty might not have helped.

There is a difference between moving somewhere because you like what is happening there, and actively joining a proscribed organisation or even providing it with material support. I don't have much sympathy in this case, but the consequences of it being generalised might give pause for thought too.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Looks like the Shakil case sets that sort of precedent, although I imagine this a better articulated version of the defence I tried to run could work in the right case. Shakil's social media activty might not have helped.

There is a difference between moving somewhere because you like what is happening there, and actively joining a proscribed organisation or even providing it with material support. I don't have much sympathy in this case, but the consequences of it being generalised might give pause for thought too.

In the case of moving to an ISIS-controlled part of Syria, I don't think there is a difference tbh. You can't move there and just live - you must actively join the cause or else you're the enemy.

 

[chilango]

I think there's a danger of making too much of this.

That is certainly one concern. Ramping up far-right agitation.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

You were responding to a post about whether she was a terrorist, but let's leave, it, the thread has moved on since my previous post

The reference to 'terrorist' was by someone else and was a reply to a point about wanting to sit next to her on the tube. Get your facts straight.

 

[eoin_k]

In the case of moving to an ISIS-controlled part of Syria, I don't think there is a difference tbh. You can't move there and just live - you must actively join the cause or else you're the enemy.

Vice journalists managed to visit and produce a film, which Daesh clearly saw some value in allowing, without getting prosecuted on their return. Clearly, Isis brides are going there because they are invested in the project, but it isn't clear to me that a higher court would or should consistently see this as meeting the requirement for membership of an organisation. Likewise, they needed to passively support the project, while they're out there, but I'm not sure that all of them should necessarily be seen as supporting it in a legal sense, which seems to require some sort of material support. The whole caliphat project set out to blur these distinctions, but I'm serious that it is worth thinking about what sort of dangerous precedents it sets in terms of criminalising communities, or beliefs rather than actions.

 

[Teaboy]

Well given the law, she faces a jail term here and losing her child for good. When she comes out of jail, we can't know how she might have changed or what kind of danger she might present, but I'm not sure that's so different from other people leaving prison after serving sentences for nasty things. I think there's a danger of making too much of this.

I dunno about the jail sentence. She was a child when she joined so that should be taken into account and that's one of the ways it differs from the Shakil case.

 

[Idris2002]

Vice journalists managed to visit and produce a film, which Daesh clearly saw some value in allowing, without getting prosecuted on their return. Clearly, Isis brides are going there because they are invested in the project, but it isn't clear to me that a higher court would or should consistently see this as meeting the requirement for membership of an organisation. Likewise, they needed to passively support the project, while they're out there, but I'm not sure that all of them should necessarily be seen as supporting it in a legal sense, which seems to require some sort of material support. The whole caliphat project set out to blur these distinctions, but I'm serious that it is worth thinking about what sort of dangerous precedents it sets in terms of criminalising communities, or beliefs rather than actions.

Sexual access to slaves and wives was a key incentive Daesh provided to its fighters, though, wasn't it? So surely volunteering to be the latter would count as actively providing support?

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Vice journalists managed to visit and produce a film, which Daesh clearly saw some value in allowing, without getting prosecuted on their return. Clearly, Isis brides are going there because they are invested in the project, but it isn't clear to me that a higher court would or should consistently see this as meeting the requirement for membership of an organisation. Likewise, they needed to passively support the project, while they're out there, but I'm not sure that all of them should necessarily be seen as supporting it in a legal sense, which seems to require some sort of material support. The whole caliphat project set out to blur these distinctions, but I'm serious that it is worth thinking about what sort of dangerous precedents it sets in terms of criminalising communities, or beliefs rather than actions.

Interesting use of the word "Project". Makes it sound so innocuous.

 

[Spymaster]

Clearly, Isis brides are going there because they are invested in the project, but it isn't clear to me that a higher court would or should consistently see this as meeting the requirement for membership of an organisation.

This makes it very clear that she saw herself as absolutely part of the organisation:

"I was weak," she said. "I could not endure the suffering and hardship that staying on the battlefield involved.

As does this:

"I applied to marry an English-speaking fighter between 20 and 25 years old,"

 

[eoin_k]

Interesting use of the word "Project". Makes it sound so innocuous.

It's because I'm a secret sympathiser, but please don't tell anyone.

 

[likesfish]

The reference to 'terrorist' was by someone else and was a reply to a point about wanting to sit next to her on the tube. Get your facts straight.

she's spent 4 years with a group who decided the Waffen SS needed to be shown how you do atrocities "watch my sweet tea" being suspicious of her and her motives is only sensible.
If she came back and committed murder tommy would have even more of a field day

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I dunno about the jail sentence. She was a child when she joined so that should be taken into account and that's one of the ways it differs from the Shakil case.

Perhaps. 15 isn't 10, though. She can be held to account for things she did at 15. If she comes back, I will be amazed if she doesn't get a jail term. tbh while I think there is a danger of overstating the threat such people represent when they return here, I also think there is a danger here of understating the role of women who go to ISIS to have their children. They're a part of the struggle just as much as the killers they marry and support.

 

[andysays]

The reference to 'terrorist' was by someone else and was a reply to a point about wanting to sit next to her on the tube. Get your facts straight.

Here, for the record, is the post you replied to, followed by your reply

Oh come on. Not every young mum, not every Muslim, not every person who has been to a Muslim country or Syria is a terrorist

Um, have you read the story?

Anyway, not bothered about pursuing this any further

 

[Smokeandsteam]

she's spent 4 years with a group who decided the Waffen SS needed to be shown how you do atrocities "watch my sweet tea" being suspicious of her and her motives is only sensible.
If she came back and committed murder tommy would have even more of a field day

I agree. But Andy Says has tried to put words in my mouth. Again.

 

[andysays]

 

[Pickman's model]

Shamima Begum was groomed. She deserves the chance of rehabilitation | Michael Segalov

Guardian Left weigh in, with Michaeal Segalov,and as expected its the argument she was groomed, etc.

I wonder if he would be so sympathetic about say, Beate Zschäpe, who was 16 when she took the turn to the far right and met Uwe Mundlos.

Yeh cos obvs daesh aren't right wing at all

 

[treelover]

she's spent 4 years with a group who decided the Waffen SS needed to be shown how you do atrocities "watch my sweet tea" being suspicious of her and her motives is only sensible.
If she came back and committed murder tommy would have even more of a field day

It will be all over his FB page now, bet they are planning some sort of rally.

 

[Pickman's model]

she's spent 4 years with a group who decided the Waffen SS needed to be shown how you do atrocities "watch my sweet tea" being suspicious of her and her motives is only sensible.
If she came back and committed murder tommy would have even more of a field day

Unless it was syl she topped

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Here's the post you replied to, followed by your reply


Etc...

I know what post I replied to. The poster before suggested that people wouldn't want to sit next to her on a tube in case. Can you understand that this does not state she is a terrorist but raises the point that her actions in Syria will raise questions and concerns.

Post one - 'she may or she may not have been engaged in terrorist activity, but would you take the chance etc.
Post two - 'oh come on' etc.
Post three - I reply 'have you read the article'.

I know explaining this stuff to you just feeds your pedantry so no more.

 

[eoin_k]

Sexual access to slaves and wives was a key incentive Daesh provided to its fighters, though, wasn't it? So surely volunteering to be the latter would count as actively providing support?

Maybe... It's just such a weird outlier. It's hard to see how defining women who go out there without swearing an oath, as men do, or recruiting others, or disseminating propaganda, or taking militant action can be defined as members of Isis without the legal definition of membership of a proscribed organisation expanding. Clearly, they support terrorism passively, but their active support also need to go beyond doing housework, or 'we' are potentially going to criminalise a lot of relatives of the members of other proscribed organisations for making their tea and washing their socks.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Maybe... It's just such a weird outlier. It's hard to see how defining women who go out there without swearing an oath, as men do, or recruiting others, or disseminating propaganda, or taking militant action can be defined as members of Isis without the legal definition of membership of a proscribed organisation expanding. Clearly, they support terrorism passively, but their active support also need to go beyond doing housework, or 'we' are potentially going to criminalise a lot of relatives of the members of other proscribed organisations for making their tea and washing their socks.

This case is clear-cut, though. She sought out ISIS so that she could join up with them and marry one of them and have children for them. We know all this. And it is very very very far from passive - it was really hard for her to get there and do all this.

 

[Spymaster]

Maybe... It's just such a weird outlier. It's hard to see how defining women who go out there without swearing an oath, as men do, or recruiting others, or disseminating propaganda, or taking militant action can be defined as members of Isis without the legal definition of membership of a proscribed organisation expanding. Clearly, they support terrorism passively, but their active support also need to go beyond doing housework, or 'we' are potentially going to criminalise a lot of relatives of the members of other proscribed organisations for making their tea and washing their socks.

Ffs, are you being serious?

You're comparing someone who travels to another continent with the express aim of 'marrying a terrorist FIGHTER', in order to have his children to create more jihadis and populate a murderous, proscribed, "state", to someone who does a relatives laundry?

For real?

 

[8ball]

Ffs, are you being serious?

You're comparing someone who travels to another continent with the express aim of 'marrying a terrorist FIGHTER', in order to have his children to create more jihadis and populate a murderous "state", to someone who does a relatives laundry?

For real?

I'm having similar trouble with this tack.

 

[Idris2002]

I can only conclude that those who take this line have decided that housework is women's work, and therefore for the weak and passive, and therefore does not qualify as 'active' support.

Which is a bit . . . . silly, if you think about it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

She's a very clear accessory to all of the acts carried out by the group she was living with while she was living with them. Not sure even she would deny that. The woman who got six years for doing similar got off relatively lightly in many ways. A man who had gone there and taken on the role of fighter and husband to one of these women would surely be facing life.

 

[likesfish]

Unless it was syl she topped

difficult one then yes shes a dangerous jihadi but the target won't exactly be missed although if jihadis hate the west they probbly wouldnt killy syl because there bastards.

 

[Idris2002]

"syl"? C'est quoi, le "syl"?

 

[eoin_k]

"syl"? C'est quoi, le "syl"?

C'est qui, pas quoi, c'est Tommy.