British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[Shippou-Sensei]

Incidentally, chin chin is an informal term for penis, in Japanese

it is. It along with manko are one of the few japanese words i've seen censored.

 

[kebabking]

yeh well there's the weapon of getting the people in the camps cases resolved locally which might seem the easiest option short of bombing the places.

HMG's preferred outcome - well, barring a tragic outbreak of Cholera - unfortunately the local communities/groups have no more wish to have these people among them than we, and the Bangladeshis, do.

Hence the stalemate.

 

[SpookyFrank]

HMG's preferred outcome - well, barring a tragic outbreak of Cholera - unfortunately the local communities/groups have no more wish to have these people among them than we, and the Bangladeshis, do.

Hence the stalemate.

Wishing doesn't enter into it. Begum is a British citizen and the British state should take responsibilty for her.

 

[Athos]

Are we saying no one can come back, because we couldn't change their mind? What does that say about us?
Are we saying that the choice they made was so heinous that it impedes reintegration? Then what does that say about our duty of care as the initiating decision was made while under our care?

While justice often calls for punishment I would like to think that reform is an even greater part.

A nice sentiment, but we've no idea what she believes and what that means for any chance of 'reintegration' - whether 'rehabilitation' is possible, or if she even wants that.

And, whilst you might be right about a duty of care, let's not forget the duty of care to others; it might be that the intelligence indicates - and, again, we've no way of knowing - that the risk to them outweighs the risk to her of staying put.

The idea that any risk she might pose could be effectively mitigated if she came back is a bit naive: First, there aren't the legal mechanisms to do it effectively on an ongoing basis; and, secondly, it'd be impossible in practice. It'd be the easiest thing in the world for someone to smuggle a phone to her, with which she could have encrypted communications with anyone. Or even for her to disappear; she need only to into a building inside which security services/police have no eyes on her, and come out in a burka the same time as others - no surveillance team could cover all possibilities.

 

[Athos]

Begum is a British citizen and the British state should take responsibilty for her.

The whole point is that (rightly or wrongly) she's not.

 

[Athos]

Several hundred people (about 40% of the 900 who travelled to fight with daesh) have returned to the UK. I'm still unsure why sb is so uniquely dangerous she can't be allowed to return and must rot in the me.

She's not unique. I'm sure we'd be safer if the others had been left to rot there, too, but that's not an option.

 

[Dom Traynor]

I don't see why the state should have the right to remove citizenship from anyone, it's extremely dangerous. I do think the state should have the right to try people in person or in absentia and inflict punishment but removal of citizenship should not be punishment unless such Citizenship was obtained fraudulently

 

[not-bono-ever]

What happened to her fellow travelers?

 

[Athos]

What happened to her fellow travelers?

At least one is reported as suspected to have been killed.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Several hundred people (about 40% of the 900 who travelled to fight with daesh) have returned to the UK. I'm still unsure why sb is so uniquely dangerous she can't be allowed to return and must rot in the me.

The media like nothing more than a dangerous woman.

 

[LDC]

Several hundred people (about 40% of the 900 who travelled to fight with daesh) have returned to the UK. I'm still unsure why sb is so uniquely dangerous she can't be allowed to return and must rot in the me.

The difference is that those people returned under their own steam, whereas SB left it until she ended up in a position where she couldn't come back like that, and for her to get back here would have required a significant amount of effort from the government to get her here.

I also expect she didn't help her chances with the media interviews she did tbh.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

A nice sentiment, but we've no idea what she believes and what that means for any chance of 'reintegration' - whether 'rehabilitation' is possible, or if she even wants that.

And, whilst you might be right about a duty of care, let's not forget the duty of care to others; it might be that the intelligence indicates - and, again, we've no way of knowing - that the risk to them outweighs the risk to her of staying put.

The idea that any risk she might pose could be effectively mitigated if she came back is a bit naive: First, there aren't the legal mechanisms to do it effectively on an ongoing basis; and, secondly, it'd be impossible in practice. It'd be the easiest thing in the world for someone to smuggle a phone to her, with which she could have encrypted communications with anyone. Or even for her to disappear; she need only to into a building inside which security services/police have no eyes on her, and come out in a burka the same time as others - no surveillance team could cover all possibilities.

I totally agree that we don't have a framework that that can adequately addressed this issue. This is why I say it is sad not infuriating.
I wanted to present the questions I thought we should try to think about as a society rather than directly critique any decisions made.
I wanted to do that just because this thread made me think about this case more and I wanted to highlight points that appeared to me.


To actually answer this stuff is difficult bordering on the nigh impossible most likely.

I know it can be frustrating asking 'but what if' without really going over it but I felt moved to throw in my 2 cents.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The whole point is that (rightly or wrongly) she's not.

Rightly or wrongly according to ethics or the law?

Dosen't really matter as making a person stateless is unambiguously wrong either way. But it's interesting to see who is lining up behind a legal ruling which claims otherwise.

 

[Athos]

I don't see why the state should have the right to remove citizenship from anyone, it's extremely dangerous. I do think the state should have the right to try people in person or in absentia and inflict punishment but removal of citizenship should not be punishment unless such Citizenship was obtained fraudulently

For me, I'm not sure stripping citizenship is necessarily worse than, say, a life sentence (assuming it doesn't leave someone stateless). But, the big issue is that a sentence following a trial is a pretty transparent process that's less obviously directly political, whereas this allows a lot of leeway to the Home Secretary, which is compounded by the fact that the sensitivity of intelligence matters means that they can't be heard openly. (I don't like the idea of trials in absentia, except for people who've decided to run to avoid it.)

 

[not-bono-ever]

Lazy of me to post a pic of a buke rather than a long post but am in bed with a wrecked back and coedined off my face atm

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Several hundred people (about 40% of the 900 who travelled to fight with daesh) have returned to the UK. I'm still unsure why sb is so uniquely dangerous she can't be allowed to return and must rot in the me.

There was huge media interest in her and the other 2 girls right from the start, when they left home and travelled to Syria. If she'd managed to stay out of the media back then, no doubt she would have been able to come back under the radar and with no fuss.

 

[Athos]

Rightly or wrongly according to ethics or the law?

Dosen't really matter as making a person stateless is unambiguously wrong either way. But it's interesting to see who is lining up behind a legal ruling which claims otherwise.

According to the law, she's not British. Ethically, there's a reasonable argument she should be.

She's not de jure stateless; she's a Bangladeshi citizen. Though it's fair to say that Bangladesh's unlawful decision not to recognise that might make her de facto stateless.

There's a difference between understanding that many of the legal criticisms of the judgement are ill-conceived, and having concerns (ethical and pragmatic) about what the law should be.

As I've explained, I have concerns about this law. But I have limited sympathy for her, and no desire to see her back in the UK (because of the risk, not as a punishment). But nobody should be left in limbo. My preferred option would be that she is tried (and serve any sentence) where any alleged crimes were committed. I don't buy into the idea that British people should be entitled to a superior kind of British justice than non-British people in the same situation, overseas.

 

[pardon]

If the UK doesn't want Brits to go join jihadi militia networks it should really stop sponsoring them. The UK and it's NATO allies has used these militias to fight their proxy wars for decades. To deny this girl the right to come home when there has been an open door for jihadis to go fight in Britain's interests and return smacks of political opportunism. Is it because the uproar about these three girls running away from home at 15 led to the turkey border being closed?

 

[pardon]

The whole point is that (rightly or wrongly) she's not.

Yes she is, Bangladesh has denied her citizenship, and the UK government has revoked her only citizenship making her illegally stateless.

 

[Athos]

Yes she is

Not insofar as that's a legal question, she's not.

 

[pardon]

Not insofar as that's a legal question, she's not.

Was her birth registered at the local Bangladeshi Embassy, because until that happens she's not a Bangladeshi citizen by descent, thus making her only nationality British

 

[Athos]

Yes she is, Bangladesh has denied her citizenship, and the UK government has revoked her only citizenship making her illegally stateless.

She was stripped of her British citizenship whilst still a dual national, such that she wasn't made stateless by the UK (albeit its arguable she was subsequently made de facto stateless by Bangladesh's deciding not to observe its own nationality laws). The courts have addressed all these issues at length.

 

[Athos]

Was her birth registered at the local Bangladeshi Embassy, because until that happens she's not a Bangladeshi citizen by descent, thus making her only nationality British

That's not what the Bangladeshi law says, as set out at length earlier in this thread, and in much of the relevant caselaw.

 

[Spymaster]

Rightly or wrongly according to ethics or the law?

... making a person stateless is unambiguously wrong either way.

At last. Some accurate condemnation of the Bangladeshi government.

 

[RedRedRose]

The cost of getting the re-integration of former ISIS members into wider society wrong, is simply huge. To say nothing of what activities they have been undertaking in said territories. I'd be swayed by (i) a genuine expression of remorse, (ii) a risk assessment close to the zero mark. But both don't seem to be forthcoming.

 

[Red Cat]

I will try to address this point by point but i'm up late/early so forgive me if I miss things. On the whole I think my safeguarding training has been decent. but it's still tricky.

While I know plenty of people are probably studying this as a member of staff that is requested to be aware of these thing the training that we get is perhaps a bit patchy
It's not that there isn't information available it's just that people only have a limited head space so most training only hits the high points and broad strokes.
Links to studies are probably made in most cases but can unfortunately be only appear very small text at the bottom of each slide.

I don't remember anything specifically about adolescence but I stared on predominantly 25+ training but now mainly teach 14-19 year olds. After many years I really feel that anything under mid 20s has a good chance as being expert bad decision makers.
Older people have that too. Of course you do find on the odd occasion a teen wise before their years.

In my case I find that a lot of my students are vulnerable. They have not fit the traditional school model and are looking for a new system to fit into.
When we are lucky that is college and a BTEC that leads to a level 2 or 3 qualification. If though some one else was selling them a (plausible) more attractive reality I get why they would join.

For a lot of these younger people mainstream education has already failed them and the mainstream zeitgeist wants to make you believe that you are the one at fault. You are too dumb to meet our standards.

Is it that unrealistic to think that people who think they are at fault , or are afraid that the label may be able to search for another answer?

And if our government/society are not meeting those needs who so we think might do that?

I think your point about maturity and marriage is very relative. Marriage gives a socially appropriate framework to pin own hopes upon.

Of course, prevent training is scratching the surface. I'm not expecting you to study it, it's a specialism, but antiterrorism is a huge international operation, people are thinking about this and it's what the training is based on.

It's clear that your students are vulnerable but sm wasn't failed by mainstream education was she? She was a high achiever. I'm wondering what could've made a difference for her when there wasn't an identified need at the time? I'm not saying there wasn't anything btw but I don't think we have much understanding of her particular trajectory do we? On the other hand, her friend who left the UK first, had just lost her mother, and was extremely vulnerable. There hasn't been much written about the importance of this, her close friendship group.

 

[A380]

Loads of weaselly racism on this thread.

Yes, lots of people arguing she can’t possibly have full agency because of her background.

 

[A380]

She’s a terrorist

Or an insurgent, or soldier or freedom fighter or warrior of god. Doesn’t matter really, if she decided to go to war, lost and still poses a risk of continuing to carry that on.

 

[Spymaster]

Was her birth registered at the local Bangladeshi Embassy, because until that happens she's not a Bangladeshi citizen by descent, thus making her only nationality British

Where do people get this shit from?

This question has been settled very clearly and comprehensively by several courts now. Legally (according to Bristish and Bangladeshi law), Begum was a dual national at the time she was stripped of her British citizenship so the act did not make her stateless. According to Bangaldeshi law she is a citizen of that nation by birth until she is 21 unless she renounces it. She hasn't. The fact that a couple of Bangledeshi politicians have said she is not a citizen of theirs doesn't change what their law says. If the Chief of the Met Police said "driving at 100mph is legal", that wouldn't make it legal. He'd just be misinterpreting the law or, as in the case of Begum, simply ignoring what it says for his own ends.

 

[Pickman's model]

The cost of getting the re-integration of former ISIS members into wider society wrong, is simply huge. To say nothing of what activities they have been undertaking in said territories. I'd be swayed by (i) a genuine expression of remorse, (ii) a risk assessment close to the zero mark. But both don't seem to be forthcoming.

Who seems to you more likely to kill people in the UK, Boris Johnson with the blood of thousands staining his hands or shemima begum?

Where do people get this shit from?

This question has been settled very clearly and comprehensively by several courts now. Legally (according to Bristish and Bangladeshi law), Begum was a dual national at the time she was stripped of her British citizen so the act did not make her stateless. According to Bangaldeshi law she is a citizen of that nation by birth until she is 21 unless she renounces it. She hasn't. The fact that a couple of Bangledeshi politicians have said she is not a citizen of theirs doesn't change what their law says. If the Chief of the Met Police said "driving at 100mph is legal", that wouldn't make it legal. He'd just be misinterpreting the law or, as in the case of Begum, simply ignoring what it says for his own ends.

The commissioner of the metropolitan police is Cressida Dick, who is not a man