NationStates

Judges rule in favour of Shamima Begum being allowed back into the UK.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:Judges rule in favour of Shamima Begum being allowed back into the UK.

That’s disappointing.

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:Judges rule in favour of Shamima Begum being allowed back into the UK.

That’s disappointing.

I think inevitable.

More details:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53427197

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:Judges rule in favour of Shamima Begum being allowed back into the UK.

That’s disappointing.

Look on the bright side if she comes back she can be placed in custody and a police investigation plus trial can actually be done.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
That’s disappointing.

I think inevitable.

More details:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53427197

So the government’s saying that it won’t assist her in getting out of Syria, but it won’t impede her entering the UK to challenge her revoked citizenship? That’s the basis of it, yeah?
I guess she can challenge it but I won’t be pleased if she gets it back. She’s a traitor and a terrorist-by-association.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
That’s disappointing.

Look on the bright side if she comes back she can be placed in custody and a police investigation plus trial can actually be done.

Yeah, that’s the positive of it.

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Look on the bright side if she comes back she can be placed in custody and a police investigation plus trial can actually be done.

Yeah, that’s the positive of it.

At least we aren't discussing shipping her to bloody Gitmo without a trial.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
Yeah, that’s the positive of it.

At least we aren't discussing shipping her to bloody Gitmo without a trial.

Yeah, that’s crossing the line even in my mind.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
I don't think she would have been. She was ditherer.

She is unimaginative but competent. She would have got on with things and done what was necessary, following scientific advice more than making political decisions.

At least any virus she got could be removed using Norton.

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:
I think inevitable.

More details:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53427197

So the government’s saying that it won’t assist her in getting out of Syria, but it won’t impede her entering the UK to challenge her revoked citizenship? That’s the basis of it, yeah?
I guess she can challenge it but I won’t be pleased if she gets it back. She’s a traitor and a terrorist-by-association.

What crime do you think she's committed?

CoraSpia wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
So the government’s saying that it won’t assist her in getting out of Syria, but it won’t impede her entering the UK to challenge her revoked citizenship? That’s the basis of it, yeah?
I guess she can challenge it but I won’t be pleased if she gets it back. She’s a traitor and a terrorist-by-association.

What crime do you think she's committed?

She joined ISIL. By doing so, she rejected British values and made herself a traitor to the United Kingdom and its people. Even if she hasn’t killed anyone personally, she’s a criminal by association and her joining ISIL means she’s condoned all its atrocities.

I think ultimately the government will lose. You can't go around stripping people of citizenship whatever their actions.

CoraSpia wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
So the government’s saying that it won’t assist her in getting out of Syria, but it won’t impede her entering the UK to challenge her revoked citizenship? That’s the basis of it, yeah?
I guess she can challenge it but I won’t be pleased if she gets it back. She’s a traitor and a terrorist-by-association.

What crime do you think she's committed?

Membership of a proscribed organisation (ISIL), punishable under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Agarntrop wrote:

CoraSpia wrote:What crime do you think she's committed?

Membership of a proscribed organisation (ISIL), punishable under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Then she surely should be put on trial by her peers and ultimately punished under that legislation if found guilty rather than kept at arms length?

Huh yougov participants apparently have a surprisingly strong opinion about it

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

CoraSpia wrote:What crime do you think she's committed?

She joined ISIL. By doing so, she rejected British values and made herself a traitor to the United Kingdom and its people. Even if she hasn’t killed anyone personally, she’s a criminal by association and her joining ISIL means she’s condoned all its atrocities.

What are 'british values?'

Agarntrop wrote:

CoraSpia wrote:What crime do you think she's committed?

Membership of a proscribed organisation (ISIL), punishable under the Terrorism Act 2000.

But she was a child when she went to join them. Children do stupid shit, Is there really a need to make her stateless for life because she was a stupid 15 year old.

Greed and Death wrote:

Agarntrop wrote:Membership of a proscribed organisation (ISIL), punishable under the Terrorism Act 2000.

But she was a child when she went to join them. Children do stupid shit, Is there really a need to make her stateless for life because she was a stupid 15 year old.

I never joined a terrorist organisation when I was 15.

Most 15 year olds don't.

Greed and Death wrote:

Agarntrop wrote:Membership of a proscribed organisation (ISIL), punishable under the Terrorism Act 2000.

But she was a child when she went to join them. Children do stupid shit, Is there really a need to make her stateless for life because she was a stupid 15 year old.

She should not be stripped of her citizenship, I disagreed with that decision. However, as a 15 year old she was well above the age of criminal responsibility and as a result needs to be held legally accountable for the very serious offence she has committed.

British terrorists should be tried in British courts. Foisting her on Bangladesh was an intensely dishonourable act by the government.

Philjia wrote:British terrorists should be tried in British courts. Foisting her on Bangladesh was an intensely dishonourable act by the government.

Her crimes were committed in Syria. She should be tried by Syrian courts. However, if she returns to the UK, she should be tried here as well for breaking our laws. I agree that trying to pawn her off on Bangladesh is ridiculous.

We don't want her back. It cannot be because she's an uncontainable threat particularly since there are a number of people in prison or under observation already and we haven't left them to rot.

I would wager that people would be far happier inviting her back to look at the case if the death penalty were an option in the event of her being found guilty but for some reason we like to pretend we don't believe in this even as we say she's lost the right to live as a Brit and many no doubt silently hoped that disease would do the work for us in that camp.

I don't like this veneer of flimflam but that's what you get when politics is an endlessly iterating game of handbags between two ugly boybands trying to confidence trick everyone that they're pretty.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:We don't want her back. It cannot be because she's an uncontainable threat particularly since there are a number of people in prison or under observation already and we haven't left them to rot.

I would wager that people would be far happier inviting her back to look at the case if the death penalty were an option in the event of her being found guilty but for some reason we like to pretend we don't believe in this even as we say she's lost the right to live as a Brit and many no doubt silently hoped that disease would do the work for us in that camp.

I don't like this veneer of flimflam but that's what you get when politics is an endlessly iterating game of handbags between two ugly boybands trying to confidence trick everyone that they're pretty.

Given that she is a war criminal, I'm broadly fine with the death penalty. I don't support it for civilian activities.

So how many British terrorists who committed more severe terror crimes than run off to join a terrorist failstate- possibly on UK soil- were deported to a foreign country afterwards?

Gormwood wrote:So how many British terrorists who committed more severe terror crimes than run off to join a terrorist failstate- possibly on UK soil- were deported to a foreign country afterwards?

She hasn't been deported. She was banned from returning. She wanted to go to Syria, she can stay there. What the Syrians do with her is no concern of ours.

It's also a little silly to pretend banning people from entering the country when they are a risk is unheard of, given current circumstances. She is, in effect, a carrier of a dangerous meme. Not so much different to being a virus carrier.

I also note that countries cooperated with eachother to make sure eachothers citizens didn't return home during the lockdowns. Brits were kept in France and so on, France wouldn't let them leave, and we wouldn't let them arrive.

Syria should, by all rights, ban her from using their transport infrastructure to leave since she poses a risk to the country she would be going to, and they should deal with her themselves.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:We don't want her back. It cannot be because she's an uncontainable threat particularly since there are a number of people in prison or under observation already and we haven't left them to rot.

I would wager that people would be far happier inviting her back to look at the case if the death penalty were an option in the event of her being found guilty but for some reason we like to pretend we don't believe in this even as we say she's lost the right to live as a Brit and many no doubt silently hoped that disease would do the work for us in that camp.

I don't like this veneer of flimflam but that's what you get when politics is an endlessly iterating game of handbags between two ugly boybands trying to confidence trick everyone that they're pretty.

Given that she is a war criminal, I'm broadly fine with the death penalty. I don't support it for civilian activities.

If she was a war criminal, she should be tried in the international criminal court in the Hague. Have they made any attempt to charge her?