ISIS bride stripped of citizenship, banned from the UK

[Ifreann]

I'm saying that she should keep her British citizenship and be allowed into Britain and put on trial if there's enough evidence of her breaking the law to warrant one.

But sure. I'm proposing thought crimes.

You support the government punishing her, without so much as a criminal charge, much less a trial and conviction, because she sympathises with ISIS. You said so yourself.

This isn't about 1984. Rather, it is about the security of a nation.

I don't think that handing down extrajudicial punishments is a good way to keep a nation secure.

---

I'm saying that she should keep her British citizenship and be allowed into Britain and put on trial if there's enough evidence of her breaking the law to warrant one.

But sure. I'm proposing thought crimes.

You support the government punishing her, without so much as a criminal charge, much less a trial and conviction, because she sympathises with ISIS. You said so yourself.

Would you even support a trial for her, or do you just want her to walk the streets like nothing happened?

No. That's what you do.

I'm saying that she should keep her British citizenship and be allowed into Britain and put on trial if there's enough evidence of her breaking the law to warrant one.

Try reading my posts before responding.

---

If she broke the law then I support putting her on trial, as I've said. If you want her to suffer because you're mad about her beliefs and who she chose to marry and have sex with then you can get the fuck over yourself.

She ain't coming back so you can "get the fuck over yourself".

You aren't even arguing anything in this post. Are you still mad because you think I called you a fascist once?

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't think that handing down extrajudicial punishments is a good way to keep a nation secure.

She doesn't contest the facts. If she did i'd support a trial, but the facts are not contested in this matter. It is not a case of the state arbitrarily going after someone and telling us they are guilty while they protest they are innocent.

No party is claiming she is innocent, not even her.

[Jolthig]

I don't think that handing down extrajudicial punishments is a good way to keep a nation secure.

She doesn't contest the facts. If she did i'd support a trial, but the facts are not contested in this matter. It is not a case of the state arbitrarily going after someone and telling us they are guilty while they protest they are innocent.

No party is claiming she is innocent, not even her.

Yeah. Not to mention if you join a terrorist organization that's declared an enemy of a nation, chances are, you're not going to be welcome back in a nation.

[Jolthig]

This is not about what crimes she personally committed on her own. It is the fact she joined an organization responsible for various crimes against humanity, and marrying a fighter in ISIS, is what gives the justification for this ban.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

You aren't even arguing anything in this post. Are you still mad because you think I called you a fascist once?

No. When you give me attitude, then I'll just give it right back. That's what I did there.

[The New California Republic]

You aren't even arguing anything in this post. Are you still mad because you think I called you a fascist once?

No. When you give me attitude, then I'll just give it right back. That's what I did there.

[British Tackeettlaus]

This is not about what crimes she personally committed on her own. It is the fact she joined an organization responsible for various crimes against humanity, and marrying a fighter in ISIS, is what gives the justification for this ban.

Also the fact she has shown no regret must be considered a large factor

[LiberNovusAmericae]

This is not about what crimes she personally committed on her own. It is the fact she joined an organization responsible for various crimes against humanity, and marrying a fighter in ISIS, is what gives the justification for this ban.

I agree. Practically declaring oneself an enemy of a nation by joining such a group is practically a renunciation of citizenship anyway. She also comes off - at least to me - as cold and manipulative.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

No. When you give me attitude, then I'll just give it right back. That's what I did there.

I'm sorry, but I won't comply.

[Ifreann]

Neither has Begum. If we're saying that being married to someone constitutes assisting their criminal activities then you're going to need to start building prisons to lock up all the spouses of all your crims.

---

If she broke the law then I support putting her on trial, as I've said. If you want her to suffer because you're mad about her beliefs and who she chose to marry and have sex with then you can get the fuck over yourself.

---

If you wonder what I believe then maybe you should ask me. Since you're curious, I don't support revoking the citizenships of the spouses of far-right nationalist terrorists, nor pursuing any criminals charges against them unless there is evidence to support such charges. If someone wants to fuck James Fields, go for it. None of my business.

She left voluntarily to go join an armed rebellion.

It's more about which group of people she threw her lot in with.

So charge her with joining a proscribed group. You know, the same thing that happens to people who join proscribed Nazi groups in Britain. Those wackos who called their baby Adolf Hitler weren't deported, were they? Did they lose their citizenships? Seems like they're possible sources of radicalisation. They could be breeding the next generation of British fascists.

I suppose if I point out that they're white then I'd be accused of playing the race card, even though you and LNA have already suggested that I wouldn't be saying the same thing if this was a white woman who joined a fascist group.

She is a possible source of radicalization and we should not tolerate her presence.

Everyone is a possible source of radicalisation. You hold some pretty radical views yourself.

She has already demonstrated she thinks it appropriate to join armed rebellions, that is a level of radicalization beyond that which can be tolerated as political discussion. We jail people for advocating violence. She has, through her actions, advocated and endorsed it.

So gather the evidence and put her on trial.

Until relatively recently she wouldn't even really count as collateral in a bombing run.

Yeah, the British government could have blown up Shamima Begum and her child and gotten away with it. The British government gets away with some pretty fucked up shit.

[Ostroeuropa]

She left voluntarily to go join an armed rebellion.

It's more about which group of people she threw her lot in with.

So charge her with joining a proscribed group. You know, the same thing that happens to people who join proscribed Nazi groups in Britain. Those wackos who called their baby Adolf Hitler weren't deported, were they? Did they lose their citizenships? Seems like they're possible sources of radicalisation. They could be breeding the next generation of British fascists.

I suppose if I point out that they're white then I'd be accused of playing the race card, even though you and LNA have already suggested that I wouldn't be saying the same thing if this was a white woman who joined a fascist group.

She is a possible source of radicalization and we should not tolerate her presence.

Everyone is a possible source of radicalisation. You hold some pretty radical views yourself.

She has already demonstrated she thinks it appropriate to join armed rebellions, that is a level of radicalization beyond that which can be tolerated as political discussion. We jail people for advocating violence. She has, through her actions, advocated and endorsed it.

So gather the evidence and put her on trial.

Until relatively recently she wouldn't even really count as collateral in a bombing run.

Yeah, the British government could have blown up Shamima Begum and her child and gotten away with it. The British government gets away with some pretty fucked up shit.

Where would you deport them to?
If they ran off to join some Putsch attempting to install the fourth reich i'd be fine with revoking their citizenship when it went tits up and they came crawling back.

[Ifreann]

I don't think that handing down extrajudicial punishments is a good way to keep a nation secure.

She doesn't contest the facts. If she did i'd support a trial, but the facts are not contested in this matter. It is not a case of the state arbitrarily going after someone and telling us they are guilty while they protest they are innocent.

No party is claiming she is innocent, not even her.

If she had been charged and received legal representation and plead guilty then that would be one thing, but that's not what's happening, is it? She isn't being charged with anything. She's possibly not received legal advice, what with her being in a refugee camp in Syria. No evidence against her has been presented to a judge. This is an entirely extra-judicial punishment.

[Ifreann]

So charge her with joining a proscribed group. You know, the same thing that happens to people who join proscribed Nazi groups in Britain. Those wackos who called their baby Adolf Hitler weren't deported, were they? Did they lose their citizenships? Seems like they're possible sources of radicalisation. They could be breeding the next generation of British fascists.

I suppose if I point out that they're white then I'd be accused of playing the race card, even though you and LNA have already suggested that I wouldn't be saying the same thing if this was a white woman who joined a fascist group.


Everyone is a possible source of radicalisation. You hold some pretty radical views yourself.

So gather the evidence and put her on trial.


Yeah, the British government could have blown up Shamima Begum and her child and gotten away with it. The British government gets away with some pretty fucked up shit.

Where would you deport them to?

Don't ask me, I don't want to deport them.

If they ran off to join some Putsch attempting to install the fourth reich i'd be fine with revoking their citizenship when it went tits up and they came crawling back.

And I wouldn't.

[Knask]

Neither has Begum. If we're saying that being married to someone constitutes assisting their criminal activities then you're going to need to start building prisons to lock up all the spouses of all your crims.

---

If she broke the law then I support putting her on trial, as I've said. If you want her to suffer because you're mad about her beliefs and who she chose to marry and have sex with then you can get the fuck over yourself.

---

If you wonder what I believe then maybe you should ask me. Since you're curious, I don't support revoking the citizenships of the spouses of far-right nationalist terrorists, nor pursuing any criminals charges against them unless there is evidence to support such charges. If someone wants to fuck James Fields, go for it. None of my business.

She left voluntarily to go join an armed rebellion.

It's more about which group of people she threw her lot in with.

I also support the idea of guilt by association.

[Proctopeo]

She left voluntarily to go join an armed rebellion.

It's more about which group of people she threw her lot in with.

I also support the idea of guilt by association.

There's a difference between "guilty by association" and "literally joined a terrorist group".

[Irona]

This is not about what crimes she personally committed on her own. It is the fact she joined an organization responsible for various crimes against humanity, and marrying a fighter in ISIS, is what gives the justification for this ban.

I agree. Practically declaring oneself an enemy of a nation by joining such a group is practically a renunciation of citizenship anyway. She also comes off - at least to me - as cold and manipulative.

She isn't being a very good manipulator. If she wanted to come back she should have played up the grooming and horror of what she went through. She might have even been able to come back eventually if she just avoided talking to reporters.

There's a good chance a legal challenge will be successful and we'll be forced to return citizenship. But I don't have an issue with a
'return in chains policy'. Make it very clear that if she comes back we'll put her on trial for being a member of a terrorist group.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I also support the idea of guilt by association.

There's a difference between "guilty by association" and "literally joined a terrorist group".

Maybe she crossed her fingers when she saw people getting killed unless they'd been very naughty. You can't just assume ISIS members are bad or something, that's prejudice and I'm offended.

[Greyveldt]

Legally speaking, would that make her an accessory to murder? Would the spousal status protect her somehow?

[Karu Nadu]

Did she kill anyone? Did she physically do anything other than go to Syria and, marry, and live with a daesh fighter? What will happen to her children?

[Ifreann]

There's a difference between "guilty by association" and "literally joined a terrorist group".

Maybe she crossed her fingers when she saw people getting killed unless they'd been very naughty. You can't just assume ISIS members are bad or something, that's prejudice and I'm offended.

I look forward to this new system of letting the Home Secretary kick people out of the country if they seem like baddies. Trials? Bah, silly liberal yoomin rites nonsense.

[Ifreann]

Did she kill anyone? Did she physically do anything other than go to Syria and, marry, and live with a daesh fighter? What will happen to her children?

Only one of her children is still alive, I believe. Presumably they will be staying with their mother.

[Irona]

Isn't being a member of a terrorist organisation is a crime in itself?

[Ostroeuropa]

Maybe she crossed her fingers when she saw people getting killed unless they'd been very naughty. You can't just assume ISIS members are bad or something, that's prejudice and I'm offended.

I look forward to this new system of letting the Home Secretary kick people out of the country if they seem like baddies. Trials? Bah, silly liberal yoomin rites nonsense.

She's already out, merely not being let back in. You may as well be mad about airport security not letting British people fly with a bomb because there hasn't been a trial.

We know she's dangerous, so she can't enter.

[Karu Nadu]

Isn't being a member of a terrorist organisation is a crime in itself?

Not if she didn't actually do anything.

[Irona]

Isn't being a member of a terrorist organisation is a crime in itself?

Not if she didn't actually do anything.

I think there was a PMQ's question on this today. There is always difficulty in proving exactly what people got up to in places like Syria. I don't have an issue with prosecuting people for simply being active members of a known terrorist group.

Given Bangladesh have said she has no root towards citizenship with them it's pretty certain our citizenship ruling will be struck down.

At the very least she's going to be on a terrorist watchlist for the rest of her life if she does come back.