Topic: Thoughts on Shamima Begum?

[Riquende]

When you're presented with hypotheticals or similar situations to help you confront your logical inconsistencies, you swiftly move past them to avoid having to engage your brain with some difficult considerations.

It's what they've all done. You make the point & don't get an answer, and you foolishly hope that something has sunk in and they've actually realised their position isn't tenable. But then they pop up again a day later with the exact same boring nonsense, and you realise they're just cowards who know that an honest answer shows them up as hypocrites, and a lie makes them out to be awful people (or I guess vice versa).

[classycarra]

Not every post is an argument. 

Yes you are spot on in your assessment. Happy?

Content, yeah don't agree with your view, but at least we both understand where we're coming from better

[Rawkybalboa]

To be fair, you say you're not - yet you keep starting arguments. The odd thing is, they're arguments against things that nobody has put forward.

For example in this post you seem to be arguing against some unnamed person in this thread who has said the decision was not lawful - yet noone I've seen has made that argument.

Last night you were arguing against someone saying joining ISIS was just a bit of silly childhood stuff - when the person you were quoting had not made that argument.

When you're presented with hypotheticals or similar situations to help you confront your logical inconsistencies, you swiftly move past them to avoid having to engage your brain with some difficult considerations. And you regularly reiterate your point (with no new supporting argumetns) because apparently the rest of us have "missed your point again".

All it comes down to from what I can see, is that you'd relish her being punished severely (and don't want to hear anything about whether there are some factors to consider in her culpability given her age and vulnerability - and don't care if she's not given a trial). I think that's a fair summary of your position, right?

Thank you thats exactly what I meant the guy just twists words and you end up into a completely different argument altogether. Good to know there are some sensible people who see through the hypocrisy.

["21C or 70F?" SchizoidWeatherMan!]

It's what they've all done. You make the point & don't get an answer, and you foolishly hope that something has sunk in and they've actually realised their position isn't tenable. But then they pop up again a day later with the exact same boring nonsense, and you realise they're just cowards who know that an honest answer shows them up as hypocrites, and a lie makes them out to be awful people (or I guess vice versa).

I'd rather not waste my time with the likes of you.

I would ask you to fuck off but that is not accepted on RAWK, so ta.

If inferential reasoning is beyond your mental capacities, its not my problem. Since I have five minutes, I will spell it out for you and the other apologists. Off to the ignore list you go.

- I don't believe she has been 'groomed', rather she has acted completely out of her own volition, free will and choice, after having been radicalized, again, by her own choice. Every teen who is influenced by others, including peers and non -related adults, is not groomed.  That is my position. She was 15, not a toddler with no sense of right or wrong. 

Therefore,

- She is majorly responsible for her own actions.

- Her actions are joining and supporting the worst terrorist group on earth with a murderous track record, with the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people attributed to them.  This is a 15 year old, who KNOWINGLY (As the judgment says) went and joined them, having seen what they are capable of. She was 15, not 5. 

- She was there for years, with most of what she did there being classified. But the SC judges and the penal reached the conclusion that she is enough of a threat to national security to override any concerns about her age and the role of others in leading her towards ISIS.  I agree.  There are reports about her being an enforcer and also complicit in preparing abducted women for rape and abuse. Also reports on her sewing suicide vests on to jihadis. As mentioned, most of her actions in Syria have not been released.

-She is a threat, unrepentant and unconcerned. She has a good chance of coming here and radicalizing others. Someone who is completely unfazed by beheadings, torture and rapes is a serious threat. I also agree with the assessment (again, in the judgment), that she has essentially changed her tune recently to influence legal proceedings and public opinion in her favour.

In summary, my position is clear.

she is a threat, here or there. She needs to be dealt with in the harshest manner possible, an 'example' for others who seek this path.  She is (majorly) responsible for her own actions and therefore, needs to pay for her crimes.  And yes, joining ISIS is a big enough crime in my book, as bad as joining the Nazis. If you have really seen what they have done, you would not argue otherwise.

The crux of the apologists arguments comes down to the assertion that she was 'groomed'. I disagree and don't think she meets the standard. Influenced != Groomed. 

Is that clear enough?

[Bullet500]

The "influenced != groomed" argument only makes sense if the process starts at age X and finishes at age X. X = 15 in this case.

In all likelihood, that wasn't the case and you probably have a different axe to grind here.

["21C or 70F?" SchizoidWeatherMan!]

The "influenced != groomed" argument only makes sense if the process starts at age X and finishes at age X. X = 15 in this case.

In all likelihood, that wasn't the case and you probably have a different axe to grind here.

No axe to grind, just absolutely abhor ISIS and every single one of their members and supporters. They are a scourge on earth and anybody who willingly chooses to join the, support them or justify their actions needs to be treated in the harshest manner possible under law. Simple as that.

[Bullet500]

No axe to grind, just absolutely abhor ISIS and every single one of their members and supporters. They are a scourge on earth and anybody who willingly chooses to join the, support them or justify their actions needs to be treated in the harshest manner possible under law. Simple as that.

The axe has nothing to do with ISIS. Just an internet argument.

[Mumm-Ra]

Here's a shocking revelation - different, persuasive arguments made on this thread have actually made me change my mind a couple of times on this.

In the end, I don't have much sympathy for the grooming storyline. She might have been an immature idiot but she was old enough to know right from wrong, and when the 'wrong' in question is as bad as the shit ISIS did (and were not shy about publicizing - it's not like anyone wouldn't have known about their violent side, it was their trademark) then that argument doesn't hold up for me

The argument that "she's fundamentally Britain's problem, we should deal with her one way or the other and not fob her off on Bangladesh or the world at large" won me over. I think that's true. Stripping her of her citizenship is a cop out

12C's arguments were persuasive but the part about "joining ISIS is akin to joining the Nazis" actually had the opposite effect on me - I thought of what we'd do to a Nazi war criminal, and what Nazis who had been tried had actually done. And I thought, what did she actually do though? She didn't behead anyone, she just went to be a wife and housekeeper for them as far as we know. What would you do with Mrs. Goebbels or Hitler's housekeeper? You could hate them all you want but you couldn't really convict them of much could you?

So I say: bring her back, reinstate her citizenship, put her on trial, and bang her up. At least 10 years. Is she a danger, who knows, but it's not out of the realms of possibility.

The problem of course is the trial, and gathering the evidence. It's the same reason why people are still sat in Guantanamo Bay. The world would be watching the trial, it has to end in a conviction so it's basically a kangaroo court - but the world is watching so it can't be - hence the conundrum.

Here's a question to those on the more sympathetic side who think she's a victim of grooming:

1) should she be put on trial?*
2) assuming no new evidence comes to light and all we know now about what she did in Syria is all we will ever know - would you convict her?
3) if you would convict her, how long of a sentence would you hand out?

Don't worry your answers will not be held against you if new information comes out, this is just a hypothetical scenario.

*does anyone know the exact charges she might be tried on? I've seen some conflicting info. "Membership of a proscribed organisation" under the 2000 Terrorism Act seems the most likely.

["21C or 70F?" SchizoidWeatherMan!]

Here's a shocking revelation - different, persuasive arguments made on this thread have actually made me change my mind a couple of times on this.

In the end, I don't have much sympathy for the grooming storyline. She might have been an immature idiot but she was old enough to know right from wrong, and when the 'wrong' in question is as bad as the shit ISIS did (and were not shy about publicizing - it's not like anyone wouldn't have known about their violent side, it was their trademark) then that argument doesn't hold up for me

The argument that "she's fundamentally Britain's problem, we should deal with her one way or the other and not fob her off on Bangladesh or the world at large" won me over. I think that's true. Stripping her of her citizenship is a cop out

12C's arguments were persuasive but the part about "joining ISIS is akin to joining the Nazis" actually had the opposite effect on me - I thought of what we'd do to a Nazi war criminal, and what Nazis who had been tried had actually done. And I thought, what did she actually do though? She didn't behead anyone, she just went to be a wife and housekeeper for them as far as we know. What would you do with Mrs. Goebbels or Hitler's housekeeper? You could hate them all you want but you couldn't really convict them of much could you?

So I say: bring her back, reinstate her citizenship, put her on trial, and bang her up. At least 10 years. Is she a danger, who knows, but it's not out of the realms of possibility.

The problem of course is the trial, and gathering the evidence. It's the same reason why people are still sat in Guantanamo Bay. The world would be watching the trial, it has to end in a conviction so it's basically a kangaroo court - but the world is watching so it can't be - hence the conundrum.

Here's a question to those on the more sympathetic side who think she's a victim of grooming:

1) should she be put on trial?*
2) assuming no new evidence comes to light and all we know now about what she did in Syria is all we will ever know - would you convict her?
3) if you would convict her, how long of a sentence would you hand out?

Don't worry your answers will not be held against you if new information comes out, this is just a hypothetical scenario.

*does anyone know the exact charges she might be tried on? I've seen some conflicting info. "Membership of a proscribed organisation" under the 2000 Terrorism Act seems the most likely.

The authorities have more information about her 'activities' in Syria which has not been released to the public due to 'national security' concerns though. There are reports directly from a Syrian journalist about her involvement in in 'preparing' abducted yazidi women for abuse and rape by ISIS fighters. Also stories about her sewing suicide vests on jihadis and enforcing islamic law in their encampments can be found online. Of course the veracity of these reports is impossible to ascertain for us, but you can be sure the authorities know a lot more than us.

She has obviously denied all of it.

[GreatEx]

What makes you say that?

Because dumping young Muslims off on an ancestral home they've never been to reinforces the narrative that the UK/West will never truly accept them as citizens, thus making it easier to recruit them in an organisation where they properly "belong".

[GreatEx]

Good post by Mummm-Ra. I like to think my incessant banging on the Why Always Bangladesh drum has played a part. I too am sceptical about the grooming argument. This is why we need her back in the UK on trial. All this hush-hush, can't tell you what we have on her, just trust us yeah?, some Syrian journalist said, but can't let her have her day in court it's too hard... it's all bollocks, this is no way to run a nation of laws!

[Juan Kerr]

The authorities have more information about her 'activities' in Syria which has not been released to the public due to 'national security' concerns though. There are reports directly from a Syrian journalist about her involvement in in 'preparing' abducted yazidi women for abuse and rape by ISIS fighters. Also stories about her sewing suicide vests on jihadis and enforcing islamic law in their encampments can be found online. Of course the veracity of these reports is impossible to ascertain for us, but you can be sure the authorities know a lot more than us.

She has obviously denied all of it.

Yeah cos this government and the authorities are so trustworthy, jesus fucking wept reading this shite on a liverpool site off all places, you'd maybe feel more at home on the daily fail comment section.

["21C or 70F?" SchizoidWeatherMan!]

Yeah cos this government and the authorities are so trustworthy, jesus fucking wept reading this shite on a liverpool site off all places, you'd maybe feel more at home on the daily fail comment section.

Read the fucking judgment before getting your knickers in a bunch. My brain cells are dying even engaging with you. 

For fucks sake. Did you hear what Starmer had to say about her? 

The court != The government

Unless you are saying the judges and the entire system is controlled by the tories? Wear a tinfoil hat.

[Juan Kerr]

Read the fucking judgment before getting your knickers in a bunch. My brain cells are dying even engaging with you. 

For fucks sake.

The court != The government

Unless you are saying the judges and the entire system is controlled by the tories? Wear a tinfoil hat.

The judgement that tells you nothing about what shes accused off i mean lets be real if there was anything off real substance you dont think this shitshow off a government would use it to amplify there racist base? You're fucked as well if what little braincells you have are dying by engaging since you don't seem to have much in the first place, i mean you're taking what the authorities are saying at face value do you know nothing about how they operate?

["21C or 70F?" SchizoidWeatherMan!]

The judgement that tells you nothing about what shes accused off i mean lets be real if there was anything off real substance you dont think this shitshow off a government would use it to amplify there racist base? You're fucked as well if what little braincells you have are dying by engaging since you don't seem to have much in the first place, i mean you're taking what the authorities are saying at face value do you know nothing about how they operate?

We don't, but the judges do. They had all the evidence to consider, which was redacted. The MI5 provided intelligence on her activities. You take judges for idiots do you?

Again, know what Starmer had to say about her?

Don't trust the tories? Perfectly justified.

Don't trust the judges and the system? Might as well give up then as the country is fucked then.

[Juan Kerr]

We don't, but the judges do. They had all the evidence to consider, which was redacted. The MI5 provided intelligence on her activities. You take judges for idiots do you?

Again, know what Starmer had to say about her?

Don't trust the tories? Perfectly justified.

Don't trust the judges and the system? Might as well give up then as the country is fucked then.

Glad you agree.

[Rawkybalboa]

They had all the evidence to consider, which was redacted. The MI5 provided intelligence on her activities. You take judges for idiots do you?

Again, know what Starmer had to say about her?

Don't trust the tories? Perfectly justified.

Don't trust the judges and the system? Might as well give up then as the country is fucked then.

 Lol MI5. Lets not forget the Canadian Intelligence agent who got her there

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62726954

Trust the authorities yeh sure

[TSC]

The authorities have more information about her 'activities' in Syria which has not been released to the public

How do you know given it hasn’t been released, assuming ‘it’ exists at all.

[Jiminy Cricket]

The authorities have more information about her 'activities' in Syria which has not been released to the public due to 'national security' concerns though. There are reports directly from a Syrian journalist about her involvement in in 'preparing' abducted yazidi women for abuse and rape by ISIS fighters. Also stories about her sewing suicide vests on jihadis and enforcing islamic law in their encampments can be found online. Of course the veracity of these reports is impossible to ascertain for us, but you can be sure the authorities know a lot more than us.

She has obviously denied all of it.

And yet, you seem so certain.

["21C or 70F?" SchizoidWeatherMan!]

How do you know given it hasn’t been released, assuming ‘it’ exists at all.

They mention it in the judgement. There are redacted parts in there.

And yet, you seem so certain.

I am not certain, of course not. But I am also not dismissing thise reports and taking her word for it.

[Jiminy Cricket]

They mention it in the judgement. There are redacted parts in there.
I am not certain, of course not. But I am also not dismissing thise reports and taking her word for it.

Who's 'taking her word for it'? I am not aware of anyone here doing that. Rather, the argument is between those who feel that summary judgment being handed down by a politician (who was groomed and trafficked) is OK; and those who feel that she should return to the UK to trial and the argument that she was groomed and trafficked be tested in a court of law to determine her culpability.

[Iska]

But it’s not dumping young Muslims off. It is washing your hands on a person who joined a terrorist organisation in a war against the West. Why would such consequences radicalise young people, surely it should be more of a deterrent?

Also, trying to avoid angering people is a pathetic reason for doing anything.  It’s weak and invites no respect, and anyone prone to being radicalised will just find another reason, it isn’t really about us at all.  Plus isn’t that approach exactly what you’ve all been furious about on the other thread, about the scuffed Koran?  You do what you think is best, and if those are the consequences you deal with those after.

[classycarra]

Also, trying to avoid angering people is a pathetic reason for doing anything.

Can you point out where someone mentioned being worried about angering people?

[Iska]

Can you point out where someone mentioned being worried about angering people?

Really? You aren’t even prepared to do me the courtesy of accepting that radicalisation and anger go hand-in-hand?

[classycarra]

Really? You aren’t even prepared to do me the courtesy of accepting that radicalisation and anger go hand-in-hand?

Yes really, had no idea that's what you meant.

From the posts I've seen that mention that topic - that taking away someone's citizenship from birth and residence would more likely be a push factor than a deterrent to susceptible people - I'd have gone for disenchanted or diseffected.

I can't say I see the associate between those words as clearly (or hand in hand) as you do - though obviously anger/resentment would feature. Like, I don't think that radicalisation occurs after someone becomes furious

[thejbs]

21C: “Read the fucking judgement. They had all the evidence to consider, which was redacted. The MI5 provided intelligence on her activities. You take judges for idiots do you?”

*judgement says Begum was groomed*

21C: “I don’t buy the groomed bs”

[Machae]

Snip

Long post about nothing really. No one is saying she doesn't need to face her actions, quite the opposite, I'm sure everyone has said she needs to, so I'm not sure what you're going on about here other than recycling the same stuff.

Your central premise is that she wasn't groomed, when the special immigration appeals commission (Siac) ruled that although there was “credible suspicion” that Begum was trafficked for sexual exploitation, the decision was ultimately one for the home secretary to take on national security grounds and out of scope for the panel.

From the Guardian...

Mr Justice Jay, who wrote the judgment, published on Wednesday, on behalf of the Siac panel, said that although there was credible suspicion that Begum “was recruited, transferred and then harboured for the purpose of sexual exploitation”, that was “insufficient” for the commission to deem the home secretary’s decision unlawful. He said it was for those advising the home secretary to consider and assess whether Begum’s travel was voluntary.

Jay said that while “many right-thinking” people would take issue with the assessment of the home secretary’s advisers that Begum’s travel in 2015 was voluntary, it was not for the commission to decide it was involuntary and then accord more weight to that finding than to the threat she posed to national security.

However, he noted that “the idea that Ms Begum could have conceived and organised all of this herself is not plausible”. The judges also said they were “concerned by the SyS’s [secretary of state’s] apparent downplaying of the significance of radicalisation and grooming in stating that what happened to Ms Begum is not unusual"

Although Siac did not have power to rule that Begum be allowed to return to the UK, even if it found that her citizenship should not have been stripped, her case has highlighted how Britain is out of step with the US and European allies in its refusal to repatriate nationals from refugee camps in north-east Syria. Several British women detained in Syria retain British citizenship but have not been repatriated.

Last month, Spain became the latest country to start repatriating families of IS fighters from Syrian refugee camps, with two Spanish women and 13 Spanish children arriving at Torrejón military airbase near Madrid.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/22/shamima-begum-loses-appeal-removal-british-citizenship#:~:text=Maya%20Foa%2C%20the%20director%20of,would%20any%20trafficked%20British%20teenager

["21C or 70F?" SchizoidWeatherMan!]

Long post about nothing really. No one is saying she doesn't need to face her actions, quite the opposite, I'm sure everyone has said she needs to, so I'm not sure what you're going on about here other than recycling the same stuff.

Your central premise is that she wasn't groomed, when the special immigration appeals commission (Siac) ruled that although there was “credible suspicion” that Begum was trafficked for sexual exploitation, the decision was ultimately one for the home secretary to take on national security grounds and out of scope for the panel.

From the Guardian...

Mr Justice Jay, who wrote the judgment, published on Wednesday, on behalf of the Siac panel, said that although there was credible suspicion that Begum “was recruited, transferred and then harboured for the purpose of sexual exploitation”, that was “insufficient” for the commission to deem the home secretary’s decision unlawful. He said it was for those advising the home secretary to consider and assess whether Begum’s travel was voluntary.

Jay said that while “many right-thinking” people would take issue with the assessment of the home secretary’s advisers that Begum’s travel in 2015 was voluntary, it was not for the commission to decide it was involuntary and then accord more weight to that finding than to the threat she posed to national security.

However, he noted that “the idea that Ms Begum could have conceived and organised all of this herself is not plausible”. The judges also said they were “concerned by the SyS’s [secretary of state’s] apparent downplaying of the significance of radicalisation and grooming in stating that what happened to Ms Begum is not unusual"

Although Siac did not have power to rule that Begum be allowed to return to the UK, even if it found that her citizenship should not have been stripped, her case has highlighted how Britain is out of step with the US and European allies in its refusal to repatriate nationals from refugee camps in north-east Syria. Several British women detained in Syria retain British citizenship but have not been repatriated.

Last month, Spain became the latest country to start repatriating families of IS fighters from Syrian refugee camps, with two Spanish women and 13 Spanish children arriving at Torrejón military airbase near Madrid.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/22/shamima-begum-loses-appeal-removal-british-citizenship#:~:text=Maya%20Foa%2C%20the%20director%20of,would%20any%20trafficked%20British%20teenager

Didn't i clearly say that national security concerns superseded any consideration for her supposed 'grooming'? But I am not convinced by the assessment. In my own opinion, the definition of grooming has been applied liberally to her case.

When I said "read the judgment", I was referring to her threat assessment and the reasoning behind the decision.

The SC heard the case. They could have overruled the home secretary as it was within their ambit. The SC judgment curtailed the scope of the SIAC review.

[Machae]

Didn't i clearly say that national security concerns superseded any consideration for her supposed 'grooming'? But I am not convinced by the assessment. In my own opinion, the definition of grooming has been applied liberally to her case.

When I said "read the judgment", I was referring to her threat assessment and the reasoning behind the decision.

The SC heard the case. They could have overruled the home secretary as it was within their ambit. The SC judgment curtailed the scope of the SIAC review.

Exactly, so when it suits you tell us to read the judgment, now you're saying you don't believe parts of it and have formed your own opinion. Righto

["21C or 70F?" SchizoidWeatherMan!]

Exactly, so when it suits you tell us to read the judgment, now you're saying you don't believe parts of it and have formed your own opinion. Righto

As should everyone. Form your own opinion. I have the right to disagree, as do you with my opinion.

[Machae]

As should everyone. Form your own opinion. I have the right to disagree, as do you with my opinion.

Yes, but you were very keen to direct us to the judgement, which people have had time digest and now you disagree with parts of it. Thanks

[dirkster]

Another fruitless appeal...

[Kenny's Jacket]

Disgusting but sadly predictable

[Jake]

How depressing

Child is manipulated by terrorists. We cast her out because she's brown.

Racist shithole country we live in, makes me sick.

However, the CoA was asked to consider whether the decision made law lawful, not correct morally.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Doesnt the UK have a law preventing sending people to countries that carry the death penalty, which Bangladesh has. I was hopoig this may help her case

[Henry Gale]

How depressing

Child is manipulated by terrorists. We cast her out because she's brown.

Racist shithole country we live in, makes me sick.

However, the CoA was asked to consider whether the decision made law lawful, not correct morally.

Seems a tad over the top  Considering the prime minister and the mayor of it's capital aren't white 

[Elmo!]

Seems a tad over the top  Considering the prime minister and the mayor of it's capital aren't white 

We're not racist, some of our best friends top politicians are blackbrown!

[Jake]

Seems a tad over the top  Considering the prime minister and the mayor of it's capital aren't white 

The country didn't vote the brown fella into number 10, and are about to get rid of him in his first election.

Good point on Khan but I still think generally we are a racist right wing nation.

[Graeme]

Am I correct in my understanding that the security reasons for the withdrawl of her citizenship were given in a behind closed doors hearing and have never been made public? If that's the case then none of us are in a position to judge the decision.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Seems a tad over the top  Considering the prime minister and the mayor of it's capital aren't white 

Sunak had to avoid the members vote to get elected, no way was he getting in via the members