Shamima Begum

123578

Comments

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    If there is evidence to try her for war crimes, she should be tried for war crimes. What shouldn’t happen is that she be condemned and punished without evidence or trial.

    She is guilty of treason, by construction. She left the UK to travel to IS and give them material aid, at a time that the UK was engaged in active conflict with IS.

    Jail her for life and be done with it.

    It would be interesting, however, to ask how her case is generally viewed by sensible mainstream British Muslims. What does the man in the Clapham mosque think?

    She was a trafficked child.

    I agree she should get a trial, and I don't think she should get an automatic life sentence, but ...

    She was over the age of criminal responsibility, she got to Istanbul largely on her own steam, and she went to Syria at a time when the evils of ISIL were already public knowledge. She went several months after they had massacred thousands of Yazidi men and made Yazidi women into sex slaves.

    To my mind, the essence of grooming is that you are introduced to something that seems on the face of it, quite nice, and it is only when you are in too deep that you realise it isn't. But the nastiness of ISIL has been known from the beginning.

    I had some pretty unpleasant opinions when I was 15, but I'd like to think I'd recognise that the Sinjar massacre crossed a moral boundary somewhere ...
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    All juveniles in the criminal justice system are by definition over the age of crimimal responsibility. We still treat them differently to how we treat adults.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    If there is evidence to try her for war crimes, she should be tried for war crimes. What shouldn’t happen is that she be condemned and punished without evidence or trial.

    She is guilty of treason, by construction. She left the UK to travel to IS and give them material aid, at a time that the UK was engaged in active conflict with IS.

    Jail her for life and be done with it.

    It would be interesting, however, to ask how her case is generally viewed by sensible mainstream British Muslims. What does the man in the Clapham mosque think?

    She was a trafficked child.

    I agree she should get a trial, and I don't think she should get an automatic life sentence, but ...

    She was over the age of criminal responsibility, she got to Istanbul largely on her own steam, and she went to Syria at a time when the evils of ISIL were already public knowledge. She went several months after they had massacred thousands of Yazidi men and made Yazidi women into sex slaves.

    To my mind, the essence of grooming is that you are introduced to something that seems on the face of it, quite nice, and it is only when you are in too deep that you realise it isn't. But the nastiness of ISIL has been known from the beginning.

    I had some pretty unpleasant opinions when I was 15, but I'd like to think I'd recognise that the Sinjar massacre crossed a moral boundary somewhere ...

    Then check your nice Western privilege. The Yazidi are Satanists. And no, I'm not being funny when I say 'not that there's anything wrong with that', because I'm not a traditional Abrahamic religionist. And no they aren't according to them. But they don't count. The helplessly ignorant pathological righteousness of the Abrahamic masses does. A mass whose pathology increases inversely proportional to privilege.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    She was over the age of criminal responsibility, she got to Istanbul largely on her own steam, and she went to Syria at a time when the evils of ISIL were already public knowledge.

    I tend to agree that she should get a trial, but it should be pointed out she and her fellow travellers were helped across the Turkish border by a coalition agent.
    She went several months after they had massacred thousands of Yazidi men and made Yazidi women into sex slaves.
    ...
    I had some pretty unpleasant opinions when I was 15, but I'd like to think I'd recognise that the Sinjar massacre crossed a moral boundary somewhere ...

    I've had a number of Christians not of all of whom were teenagers use the Canaanite massacres to justify various current events.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Then check your nice Western privilege.

    You know who else has "nice Western privilege"? British teenagers. Even the Muslim ones.
  • Most of us know about the evils of Da'esh, the genocide of Yazidis included, because we watch mainstream news and read mainstream newspapers, or discuss things with people who do. Not everyone does that, and especially a lot of teenagers don't get their news that way. On various threads recently we've been bemoaning the impact of social media bubbles that cocoon people into believing mainstream media are purveyors of "fake news", that people believe all sorts of bizarre conspiracy theories, etc. If we accept that significant numbers of US citizens believe that the US election was rigged and Biden isn't the duly elected President then we can't discount similar news biases to lead to teenagers being unaware of Da'esh atrocities; if the news people see leads them to believe that something as patently absurd as Q-anon then the news other people see could lead them to believe that Da'esh were the legitimate expression of Muslim identity persecuted by Christian nations.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited March 11
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Then check your nice Western privilege.

    You know who else has "nice Western privilege"? British teenagers. Even the Muslim ones.

    I was a privileged British teenager. And I wasn't nice.

    And spot on @Alan Cresswell
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    She defended the Ariane Grandee massacre as parity for British bombing of ISIS. Was she wrong?
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    She was a child
  • if the news people see leads them to believe that something as patently absurd as Q-anon then the news other people see could lead them to believe that Da'esh were the legitimate expression of Muslim identity persecuted by Christian nations.

    True. Someone might be a perfectly nice, decent person misled by Q-Anon into storming the US Capitol in defence of the "legitimate President". That doesn't mean they get a free pass.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    If there is evidence to try her for war crimes, she should be tried for war crimes. What shouldn’t happen is that she be condemned and punished without evidence or trial.

    She is guilty of treason, by construction. She left the UK to travel to IS and give them material aid, at a time that the UK was engaged in active conflict with IS.

    Jail her for life and be done with it.

    It would be interesting, however, to ask how her case is generally viewed by sensible mainstream British Muslims. What does the man in the Clapham mosque think?

    She was a trafficked child.

    I agree she should get a trial, and I don't think she should get an automatic life sentence, but ...

    She was over the age of criminal responsibility, she got to Istanbul largely on her own steam, and she went to Syria at a time when the evils of ISIL were already public knowledge. She went several months after they had massacred thousands of Yazidi men and made Yazidi women into sex slaves.

    To my mind, the essence of grooming is that you are introduced to something that seems on the face of it, quite nice, and it is only when you are in too deep that you realise it isn't. But the nastiness of ISIL has been known from the beginning.

    I had some pretty unpleasant opinions when I was 15, but I'd like to think I'd recognise that the Sinjar massacre crossed a moral boundary somewhere ...

    You are talking about the political ideology - but explicitly what the children were going to do was “marry”. They were being offered, ostensibly, status and affection. They were below the age of consent.

    Can you seem the similarity here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43400336

    "There are many different reasons for this - many young people don't even realise the abusive nature of what is happening. Some may even feel in some way complicit in the abuse because there has been some kind of 'reward' or receipt of something."
    That can be gifts, alcohol, drugs, or affection. In some cases victims are so traumatised they use drink or drugs to cope. But they then need the means to get the drink or drugs. It's a vicious circle.
    Ms Gladman says this is one area in which "nothing has changed".
    "The grooming is so good, so targeted and tailored that the girls - and boys - involved don't understand they are being exploited. They don't listen to warnings. They're desperate for love and attention and it's up to the experts to recognise that, to spot who is vulnerable, and almost follow the grooming process themselves.
  • Just look at the background of the younger teen who went first https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharmeena_Begum
  • I don't think anyone is suggesting a free pass. If someone believes the rubbish of Q-Anon that's not a crime, but if they act on that by committing a crime such as storming the Capitol they should be tried for that, and pay whatever penalty the courts determine if found guilty. Likewise, I've not seen anyone here claim that Shamima Begum shouldn't be tried for any crimes she may have committed, and pay whatever penalty if found guilty. But, that she fell for a bunch of lies isn't proof of guilt, nor is it justification for her being exiled without first being found guilty by a court.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Shipmate
    edited March 11
    Martin54 wrote: »
    She defended the Ariane Grandee massacre as parity for British bombing of ISIS. Was she wrong?

    Yes, I think so.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    She was a child

    A 19 year old one at the time, yes.

    And in her moral universe, she was, of course, right. Still is. Will be in 50 years. People don't change.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    People can and do. Mind you some choose not to change and I do wonder whether an attitude can harden after exposure to attitudes such as that displayed by Martin upthread.

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    One of the purposes of prison (should she be convicted of a crime with a custodial sentence) is rehabilitation. There are large numbers of examples of people who have left prison as reformed characters, who never commit another crime (even though the fact they've served their "debt to society" means they're forever disadvantaged, struggle to find good jobs etc). Is it a waste of time to try and rehabilitate prisoners? And, if not why should Shamima Begum be any different, assuming she serves time in prison?

    And, outwith the prison system there are programmes that help people reform from a life of crime, shake free of dependencies (both chemical and relational) and deradicalise which are successful. Why shouldn't any of those work for her?

    Of course, the longer she's kept in squalid conditions in a refugee camp the harder that's going to be. Having been kept there so long already, having lost a child who should have lived if she'd been repatriated in time, it's not unreasonable that resentment of British society has been growing.

    Bit in bold. I have never understoood how a criminal locked away in the Chokey at the taxpayers expense has served their debt to society.

  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    You ain’t never been in the slammer
  • Hence my use of quotation marks, using a commonly used phrase even though I agree it's a strange phrase. I can see it applying to community service, or when the police take high value goods purchased with money illegally obtained and auction them off with proceeds to community groups. But, simply being in prison doesn't repay a debt to anyone - though, rehabilitation and taking up a productive role in society after release, without a return to criminal activity, could be considered as such.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    I think "paying your debt to society" in a prison context has to do with being locked up, out of the wider world, and with little control over your own life.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    People can and do. Mind you some choose not to change and I do wonder whether an attitude can harden after exposure to attitudes such as that displayed by Martin upthread.

    Choose? What's that? How? So it will be my fault if she chooses to be what she is? Can you quantify this choosing?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited March 12
    Most of us know about the evils of Da'esh, the genocide of Yazidis included, because we watch mainstream news and read mainstream newspapers, or discuss things with people who do. Not everyone does that, and especially a lot of teenagers don't get their news that way. On various threads recently we've been bemoaning the impact of social media bubbles that cocoon people into believing mainstream media are purveyors of "fake news", that people believe all sorts of bizarre conspiracy theories, etc. If we accept that significant numbers of US citizens believe that the US election was rigged and Biden isn't the duly elected President then we can't discount similar news biases to lead to teenagers being unaware of Da'esh atrocities; if the news people see leads them to believe that something as patently absurd as Q-anon then the news other people see could lead them to believe that Da'esh were the legitimate expression of Muslim identity persecuted by Christian nations.

    I'm a great believer in all things are true, that it is perfectly normal to believe anything and everything if your framing story is good enough. And it will be. The propaganda machine maintaining the story will turn Da'esh atrocities in to righteousness. In 1922 the Turkish memorial to the Armenian Genocide was removed. It was restored in 1999.

    The man in the Clapham mosque would have a private resonance with that last clause Alan. As a most proper Muslima colleague said to my wife on the morning after 9 11, 'What did you expect?'.

    Rationalism is a tiny minority framing story. Undermined by humanism as here.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited March 12
    Ricardus wrote: »
    If there is evidence to try her for war crimes, she should be tried for war crimes. What shouldn’t happen is that she be condemned and punished without evidence or trial.

    She is guilty of treason, by construction. She left the UK to travel to IS and give them material aid, at a time that the UK was engaged in active conflict with IS.

    Jail her for life and be done with it.

    It would be interesting, however, to ask how her case is generally viewed by sensible mainstream British Muslims. What does the man in the Clapham mosque think?

    She was a trafficked child.

    I agree she should get a trial, and I don't think she should get an automatic life sentence, but ...

    She was over the age of criminal responsibility, she got to Istanbul largely on her own steam, and she went to Syria at a time when the evils of ISIL were already public knowledge. She went several months after they had massacred thousands of Yazidi men and made Yazidi women into sex slaves.

    To my mind, the essence of grooming is that you are introduced to something that seems on the face of it, quite nice, and it is only when you are in too deep that you realise it isn't. But the nastiness of ISIL has been known from the beginning.

    I had some pretty unpleasant opinions when I was 15, but I'd like to think I'd recognise that the Sinjar massacre crossed a moral boundary somewhere ...

    You are talking about the political ideology - but explicitly what the children were going to do was “marry”. They were being offered, ostensibly, status and affection.

    But the two are not separable. The attraction of a 'husband' in Raqqa rather than Bethnal Green was that he would be fighting for ISIL. The status she was being offered derived from the idea that being part of ISIL was a good thing.
    Can you seem the similarity here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43400336

    I do, but I also see differences. Firstly, one is about consent to horrible things being done to oneself, and the other is about support for horrible things being done to other people.

    Secondly, the grooming victims in Rochdale weren't in a position to know in advance why 'dating' their groomers was a bad idea (because they didn't have the emotional maturity to understand why a 'relationship' with a significantly older man would not be romantic, and I doubt that their abusers laid out in advance a full plan of the abuse that would take place), whereas it's not as though ISIL ever tried to cover up their massacres and beheadings.

    Having said all that: I do support her right to a fair trial, and that is because it is entirely possible that I am completely wrong about all of the above, and that a fair trial would change my mind.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    @Martin54 15 years old when left this country.

    A child.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    @Martin54 15 years old when left this country.

    A child.

    19 years old when she endorsed the Ariana Grandee massacre.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    I wonder why you feel that a teenage school girl leaving this country is something that can be conveniently swept under the carpet?

    She was a child.



    I don’t know, it is just that something seems a bit off in your responses. Maybe it’s the weather
  • It's a controversial point about being groomed. Do you become a responsible adult, when you're 18, even if you are still with your groomers? I have no idea, but Shamima is being told to grow up now. I wonder if with sexual grooming, we are more forgiving.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    I wonder why you feel that a teenage school girl leaving this country is something that can be conveniently swept under the carpet?

    She was a child.



    I don’t know, it is just that something seems a bit off in your responses. Maybe it’s the weather

    I wonder why you feel that I feel that when nothing I have said indicates that and in fact the opposite. The weather's fine.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited March 12
    Indeed, the sunshine is out here .

    As we were
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    If there is evidence to try her for war crimes, she should be tried for war crimes. What shouldn’t happen is that she be condemned and punished without evidence or trial.

    She is guilty of treason, by construction. She left the UK to travel to IS and give them material aid, at a time that the UK was engaged in active conflict with IS.

    Jail her for life and be done with it.

    It would be interesting, however, to ask how her case is generally viewed by sensible mainstream British Muslims. What does the man in the Clapham mosque think?

    Wouldn't she have to be given back her British citizenship to be considered a traitor to Britain, and therefore guilty of Treason? That was the controversy over the Lord Haw Haw business I quoted. He was charged and executed for Treason, by a country to whom he owed no citizenship allegiance. The Government have removed Shemima Begum's citizenship which means technically she owes no allegiance to the UK and cannot be considered as being a traitor. Yet another reason why the UK Government's actions were arguably self-defeating. Either they wanted to hold her to account for her treachery, or they wanted to wash their hands off her, and in effect leave her 'free' to carry no accountability or guilt for any offence she has committed against her home nation of Britain. They could prosecute for other crimes, perhaps, but not Treason.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    When Yago Riedijk gets out of jail in Syria he can take his child bride back to the Netherlands, surely? Where he can stand trial for statutory rape.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Clutching at straws,aren’t you?
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited March 12
    Anselmina wrote: »
    Either they wanted to hold her to account for her treachery, or they wanted to wash their hands off her, and in effect leave her 'free' to carry no accountability or guilt for any offence she has committed against her home nation of Britain. They could prosecute for other crimes, perhaps, but not Treason.

    Well, if she's not a citizen, there's no reason to let her in to the UK, and no reason for the UK to treat her any differently from a Syrian who fought for IS. But if the deprivation of her UK citizenship is illegal or invalid, then she's still a UK citizen, is entitled to return to the UK, and so also entitled to be jailed for treason.

    The UK government wants to take the first route. It doesn't want to punish her particularly - it just doesn't want her. It would rather she just disappeared, and died in anonymity.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    And you think that depriving her of citizenship is no punishment?

    Jesus wept
  • Sojourner wrote: »
    And you think that depriving her of citizenship is no punishment?

    That's not at all what I said. @Anselmina was suggesting that, if the UK government wants to publicly try and convict Ms Begum, then by removing her citizenship, they have removed their ability to try her for treason.

    I don't think the UK government wants to publicly try and convict Ms Begum at all. I think they want her to quietly disappear. I think the UK government sees no possible advantage in repatriating Ms Begum in order to put her on trial.

    If she were to die - in a refugee camp, in Syria, wherever - it would shrug its shoulders and ask what you expect. But I think you're right in a way - I don't think that in the UK government's view, depriving Ms Begum of her citizenship is a punishment, exactly. It's more like divorcing an adulterous spouse. You're not punishing them for adultery by divorcing them - the divorce is a natural consequence of their betrayal.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Clutching at straws,aren’t you?

    How so Sojourner? If she needs to be brought back under the wing and eye of civilised society? I agree, as I keep saying, she's ours, but that would be a result surely?
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Back to her native country as she would have been were she white
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    And you think that depriving her of citizenship is no punishment?

    That's not at all what I said. @Anselmina was suggesting that, if the UK government wants to publicly try and convict Ms Begum, then by removing her citizenship, they have removed their ability to try her for treason.

    I don't think the UK government wants to publicly try and convict Ms Begum at all. I think they want her to quietly disappear. I think the UK government sees no possible advantage in repatriating Ms Begum in order to put her on trial.

    If she were to die - in a refugee camp, in Syria, wherever - it would shrug its shoulders and ask what you expect. But I think you're right in a way - I don't think that in the UK government's view, depriving Ms Begum of her citizenship is a punishment, exactly. It's more like divorcing an adulterous spouse. You're not punishing them for adultery by divorcing them - the divorce is a natural consequence of their betrayal.

    But did she betray her country?

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Back to her native country as she would have been were she white

    And your evidence for this is who?
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Sojourner wrote: »
    And you think that depriving her of citizenship is no punishment?

    That's not at all what I said. @Anselmina was suggesting that, if the UK government wants to publicly try and convict Ms Begum, then by removing her citizenship, they have removed their ability to try her for treason.

    I don't think the UK government wants to publicly try and convict Ms Begum at all. I think they want her to quietly disappear. I think the UK government sees no possible advantage in repatriating Ms Begum in order to put her on trial.

    If she were to die - in a refugee camp, in Syria, wherever - it would shrug its shoulders and ask what you expect. But I think you're right in a way - I don't think that in the UK government's view, depriving Ms Begum of her citizenship is a punishment, exactly. It's more like divorcing an adulterous spouse. You're not punishing them for adultery by divorcing them - the divorce is a natural consequence of their betrayal.

    But did she betray her country?

    Ask the UK Government. They're the ones who say that the UK is no longer her country. (I know she did, too, but her legal status is down to the state.)

    She is a foreigner, according to the UK Government. Does the UK Government have the right under International Law to prosecute a foreign national for Treason against the British State? I don't know. Maybe the argument that she was British once makes it okay. I'm not sure I'd have much of a problem with that myself. But in that case, that suggests that it would also be reasonable for Shemima's advocates to look to the UK for justice, fair trial, protection etc on the basis that she was 'once' British. Sauce for the goose.

    There's nothing to stop the UK prosecuting Shemima Begum for her crimes in the same way they've approached the prosecution of other terrorist atrocities perpetrated by foreign nationals (eg, Lockerbie). 'Treason' just seems to unnecessarily complicate things. I don't think they have sought this, have this?




  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    I think what the Gummint has done is to have its cake and eat it; take no responsibility and make an example of her

    Cast the girl off and let her rot; that will teach her to be so ungrateful as to run away from wonderful Britain which so graciously gave citizenship to her and her family

    May it collectively rot in hell

  • Sojourner wrote: »
    I think what the Gummint has done is to have its cake and eat it; take no responsibility and make an example of her

    Cast the girl off and let her rot; that will teach her to be so ungrateful as to run away from wonderful Britain which so graciously gave citizenship to her and her family

    May it collectively rot in hell

    I think putting her on trial could prove awkward, all kinds of stuff could crawl out of the woodwork. The nature of the Prevent programme, for example, which seems ambiguous, shall we say.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Would not surprise me at all
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    You ain’t never been in the slammer

    Of course not.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    There are many at least as righteous as yourself who have done or are doing time
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Call me Mr Cynical, but I suspect what the Government wants is for the ECHR to find against it, so that it can say 'Look! The ECHR supports terrorism! We must immediately withdraw from it, like our friends in Belarus and Kazakhstan.'
  • Weren't any of you awful as teenagers too? Did she kill anyone herself?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited March 12
    Anselmina wrote: »

    She is a foreigner, according to the UK Government. Does the UK Government have the right under International Law to prosecute a foreign national for Treason against the British State? I don't know. Maybe the argument that she was British once makes it okay.

    I doubt that it does. I cannot commit treason against either the UK or the US for example. If I renounce my present citizenship and go through all the procedures to become a citizen of the US, there are 2 consequences - I can commit treason against the US, and can no longer commit treason against Oz. FWIW, I could probably still be prosecuted for treason against Oz for acts done before renunciation. In other words, Lord Haw Haw's position at trial was probably correct legally but politics led to a different conclusion.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    I think what the Gummint has done is to have its cake and eat it; take no responsibility and make an example of her

    Cast the girl off and let her rot; that will teach her to be so ungrateful as to run away from wonderful Britain which so graciously gave citizenship to her and her family

    May it collectively rot in hell

    I think putting her on trial could prove awkward, all kinds of stuff could crawl out of the woodwork. The nature of the Prevent programme, for example, which seems ambiguous, shall we say.

    Ambiguous?
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Would not surprise me at all

    Riiiiight. Conspiracism is apolitical I see.
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Call me Mr Cynical, but I suspect what the Government wants is for the ECHR to find against it, so that it can say 'Look! The ECHR supports terrorism! We must immediately withdraw from it, like our friends in Belarus and Kazakhstan.'

    Yeaahhh.
    Weren't any of you awful as teenagers too? Did she kill anyone herself?

    Perish the thought, she just sewed people in to tamper proof suicide vests, what nice gel wouldn't?

    The more this kind of inane bollocks is expressed the more I can see the pragmatism of excluding the forty. I'd just love to see any of you in a position of responsibility and see how you handle it.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    When did YOU last hold a position of responsibility, Martin?
Sign In or Register to comment.