British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[SpackleFrog]

She's not the child of refugees. They left Uganda in the 60s well before Amin started expelling Asians.

Apologies, I'm just repeating what others have said on thread, don't know anything about her background myself.

 

[SpackleFrog]

The point is that if you choose to join and remain a member of such an organisation in the full knowledge of its horrors, its hard to say that you don't present some level of risk. Albeit I accept that, without being party to the intelligence neither of us know the full extent of that risk. Such that the idea that she isn't a risk is a really poor basis for criticising the decision. I've criticised the law, but this is a weak ground on which do so, as are some of the other challenges people have raised on this thread e.g. those based on a misunderstanding of Bangladeshi law.

But you don't know if she chose to remain. And neither do I. This is just conjecture.

I might say - in fact I would say - that I doubt Daesh just let teenage brides leave if they get freaked out when they see atrocities and death, and that the idea that she freely chose to stay sounds a bit daft. But I don't know. Its just conjecture.

 

[Athos]

What if she'd been eleven rather than fifteen when it happened? If she hadn't turned and run away on her sixteenth birthday would it still have been a question of her agency?

Absent any other intelligence, it'd make a difference to my perception of the risk she poses, certainly. Both on the age point, and on the decision to get out; let's not forget that she never renounced that ideology before capture, even in adulthood and after losing two kids.

 

[SpackleFrog]

It might affect the decision, insofar as it does to the 'conducive to the public good' part of the statutory test.

In any event, any critique if the law ought to consider such unintended consequences.

Also, I'm not sure you understand how the law works.

I'm not a legal expert by any means, all I've tried to point out on this thread is that courts interpret laws. But a UK court wouldn't consider a non-UK citizen who was not born in or resident to the UK as being relevant to a judgement about the public good would they?

 

[Athos]

But you don't know if she chose to remain. And neither do I. This is just conjecture.

I might say - in fact I would say - that I doubt Daesh just let teenage brides leave if they get freaked out when they see atrocities and death, and that the idea that she freely chose to stay sounds a bit daft. But I don't know. Its just conjecture.

You added the word 'freely' to what I said. But there's no evidence that she tried or even wanted to leave. Its just not possible to say she's not a risk, is it?

 

[Athos]

I'm not a legal expert by any means, all I've tried to point out on this thread is that courts interpret laws. But a UK court wouldn't consider a non-UK citizen who was not born in or resident to the UK as being relevant to a judgement about the public good would they?

The children were British citizens.

 

[maomao]

Absent any other intelligence, it'd make a difference to my perception of the risk she poses, certainly. Both on the age point, and on the decision to get out; let's not forget that she never renounced that ideology before capture, even in adulthood and after losing two kids.

I said if she didn't leave.

Does the fact that this story starts with the sexual abuse of a child not affect your reading of it in any way?

 

[not-bono-ever]

So the precedent had been established. Could be fun for many with effective dual citizenship. Nice way for a country to wash its hands and push responsibility onto someone else. I don’t give a shut either way about begun but this is abhorrent

 

[SpackleFrog]

You added the word 'freely' to what I said. But there's no evidence that she tried or even wanted to leave. Its just not possible to say she's not a risk, is it?

Again, read my point. I said that she might be a risk. I was objecting to you saying you knew she was a risk and claiming that this conjecture was fact.

E2A: you have no evidence that she didn't try to leave either.

 

[Athos]

I said if she didn't leave.

Does the fact that this story starts with the sexual abuse of a child not affect your reading of it in any way?

Sorry, I misread your post.

Of course it's relevant. But, taken in the round with the other facts we know, I don't know how anyone could seriously suggest she doesn't pose a risk (and they're may be more intelligence that we don't know).

 

[Athos]

I said that she might be a risk. I was objecting to you saying you knew she was a risk and claiming that this conjecture was fact.

Risk is about uncertainty. If something might be a risk, it is a risk (until it's excluded). If she might commit an atrocity in the uk, then she is a risk.

 

[not-bono-ever]

fuck it

 

[maomao]

Sorry, I misread your post.

Of course it's relevant. But, taken in the round with the other facts we know, I don't know how anyone could seriously suggest she doesn't pose a risk (and they're may be more intelligence that we don't know).

I'm saying that celebrating and defending the racist British state's role in the eventual fate of a groomed and abused child is lacking morality. Tears and sadness are the appropriate response to the story not showboating your way over a flood of implicit racism and sexism.

 

[Athos]

I'm saying that celebrating and defending the racist British state's role in the eventual fate of a groomed and abused child is lacking morality. Tears and sadness are the appropriate response to the story not showboating your way over a flood of implicit racism and sexism.

I'm not doing that, though. I've said previously that this wasn't my preferred outcome, and criticised the government's actions (see below). (That's not altered by me pointing out that much of the criticism is factually and legally weak.)

I said from the outset I'd have preferred if she'd not been stripped of her British nationality, and repeatedly said that decision can be criticised/should be challenged on a number of bases. And I've said that (like you) I'd have preferred her to have been tried locally.

I'm quite happy to criticise the government for acting outside this law, but that's different from criticising this law on the basis that it allows them to strip sole nationality - something it explicitly forbids.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a shit law that's been badly used.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The point is that if you choose to join and remain a member of such an organisation in the full knowledge of its horrors, its hard to say that you don't present some level of risk. Albeit I accept that, without being party to the intelligence neither of us know the full extent of that risk. Such that the idea that she isn't a risk is a really poor basis for criticising the decision. I've criticised the law, but this is a weak ground on which do so, as are some of the other challenges people have raised on this thread e.g. those based on a misunderstanding of Bangladeshi law.

Bollocks. Arguments have been made by me and others that the idea that Begum's status should depend on a correct interpretation of Bangladeshi law is itself wrong. And discriminatory. I don't know what arguments Begum's lawyers made, but this seems a clear-cut case of indirect racial discrimination to me. You don't agree? Fine. But don't pretend your disagreement is due to some superior understanding of law.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I'm a dual national and while I have no immediate plans to fight overseas to establish an Islamic caliphate, I definitely feel like this decision has downgraded my citizenship.

Works both ways though, I am only British and am therefore denied the opportunities that Spymaster has with his dual nationality in regards to access to the EU.

 

[Athos]

Bollocks. Arguments have been made by me an others that the idea that Begum's status should depend on a correct interpretation of Bangladeshi law is itself wrong. And discriminatory. I don't know what arguments Begum's lawyers made, but this seems a clear-cut case of indirect racial discrimination to me. You don't agree? Fine. But don't pretend your disagreement is due to some superior understanding of law.

Lol, clear-cut to you, but not me or Begum's lawyers (who didn't pursue that line of argument), the tribunals, the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal, or the Supreme Court. None of which has a superior understanding of the law than you do. OK.

 

[Pickman's model]

Bollocks. Arguments have been made by me and others that the idea that Begum's status should depend on a correct interpretation of Bangladeshi law is itself wrong. And discriminatory. I don't know what arguments Begum's lawyers made, but this seems a clear-cut case of indirect racial discrimination to me. You don't agree? Fine. But don't pretend your disagreement is due to some superior understanding of law.

I think that Athos may well have a better understanding of the law than you, unless you've a history in the legal profession under your hat

 

[Dr. Furface]

Works both ways though, I am only British and am therefore denied the opportunities that Spymaster has with his dual nationality in regards to access to the EU.

Says bloke who voted Leave

 

[SpackleFrog]

Risk is about uncertainty. If something might be a risk, it is a risk (until it'sexcluded). If she might commit an atrocity in the uk, then she is a risk.

By that definition, everybody is a risk.

 

[maomao]

Risk is about uncertainty. If something might be a risk, it is a risk (until it'sexcluded). If she might commit an atrocity in the uk, then she is a risk.

You've committed some atrocities on this bulletin board tbf.

 

[Athos]

You've committed some atrocities on this bulletin board tbf.

True enough.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Says bloke who voted Leave

Yep, sacrificed my chance of taking a zero-hours, minimum wage job at McDonald’s in Vilnius for the greater good of the country.

 

[Athos]

By that definition, everybody is a risk.

That's true; it's a question of extent. That, coupled with the fact we're not party to any intelligence, is why arguing against the government on the basis that she poses little risk is a complete dead end.

A better challenge now (maybe in the European Court, based on Article 6 of the ECHR - the right to a fair trial, albeit certain immigration-type matters are excluded) would be based on the SC's decision that the fact she can't have a fair hearing from outside the jurisdiction isn't a reason to allow her in; the suggestion that it simply means the hearing can't take place now. There's a long established provoke that justice delayed is justice denied (made more acute by the circulated in which she kept in the meantime).

 

[SpackleFrog]

That's true; it's a question of extent. That, coupled with the fact we're not party to any intelligence, is why arguing against the government on the basis that she poses little risk is a complete dead end.

I didn't say that I can argue that she poses little risk. I merely said that your assertion that you could know that she poses a significant risk was conjecture.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Says bloke who voted Leave

So glad you've brought up Brexit, I was worried this thread wasn't boring enough.

 

[Spymaster]

You have been part of the group of posters talking about her breeding?

I don't think he has.

Can you quote any poster on this thread talking about her breeding, for that matter?

 

[Athos]

I didn't say that I can argue that she poses little risk. I merely said that your assertion that you could know that she poses a significant risk was conjecture.

Without getting epistemological, on the facts I know, I can conclude that she poses a significant risk (albeit I can't know that risk will manifest). And it seems like you accept you can't argue she doesn't pose such a risk. Which is why the risk argument is a moot point insofar as criticising this decision.

 

[SpackleFrog]

I don't think he has.

Can you quote any poster on this thread talking about her breeding, for that matter?

Keep up, conjecture is fact and the only reason you're not an ISIS bride is because no one asked you to be.

Its all on the thread if anyone cares to check.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Without getting epistemological, on the facts I know, I can conclude that she poses a significant risk (albeit I can't know that risk will manifest). And it seems like you accept you can't argue she doesn't pose such a risk. Which is why the risk argument is a moot point insofar as criticising this decision.

But thats just a semantic way for you to claim that she poses a significant risk, and if you can do that then I can claim that Spymaster poses a significant risk as well. I might feel like saying it but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny its just armchair psychology and conjecture.