ISIS teenager wants to come home

[Cosmic Yak]

Because what the courts do is always correct? Or because you think it doesn't matter whether she was groomed or not, and fortunately neither do the courts?

Or there's a third option....

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Come off it. Think back to when you were fifteen. Can you honestly say hand on heart your peers or an older age group didn't persuade you to do, say or wear something that, looking back, you realise was utterly stupid and would never have happened were you an adult?

Should you be held responsible evermore for wearing those stacked platform boots or getting paralytic drunk on vodka and gin or joining some whacko political or religious group because you thought their ideas were great at the time.

Or do you understand that you were an immature un-fully formed person as of that age?

Take it up with Parliament. The law, as it stands, disagrees with you. As do I.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

That's because they rely solely on the word of intelligence operatives that she is still a security risk. That is fair enough but what isn't fair is that her defence lawyers and herself are not allowed to know what this claim is based on. Intelligence operatives tend to be ultra-nationalistic (ipso facto) and have a very polarised view of what is patriotic and what is not, so IMV, what they claim is a security risk might be based on nothing more than a knee jerk reaction, not dissimilar to some views expressed her. They know she is a risk but are unable to articulate in which way. It seems to be based on good old-fashioned prejudice, in its original meaning of the word, preconceived ideas not based on ration, just a 'feeling'.

No, that's because they rejected the claim of grooming, and that of trafficking, because there was a) insufficient evidence to support those claims, and b) evidence that Begum acted voluntarily and of her own volition.
The assessment of security risk has nothing at all to do with this particular topic.

 

[Olmstead]

Or there's a third option....

You don't think she was groomed, and fortunately the courts don't care, or fortunately they agree with you?

You do realise how infuriating and pointless it is to discuss things with someone whose go to is to quote a court decision?

 

[Wudang]

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Shamima-Begum-OPEN-Judgment.pdf
You can grep "groom" in the text but tl;dr version

Sorry search for "GROUND 1" in that document which is: "16. GROUND 1: the Secretary of State failed to take into account an obviously material relevant consideration and/or failed to undertake proper inquiries into it, namely that Ms
Begum may have been a victim of trafficking in February 2015, and thereafter."

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You don't think she was groomed, and fortunately the courts don't care, or fortunately they agree with you?

You do realise how infuriating and pointless it is to discuss things with someone whose go to is to quote a court decision?

Would you prefer that we ignore the only factual evidence that we have, and speculate based on our personal biases instead? I'd rather not, thanks all the same.
All we know for sure is that Begum's lawyers played the grooming card, and the courts rejected it. Unless, that is, you have some other source of information regarding the circumstances of her joining ISIS. Do you? I'd be more than happy to discuss it if you have.

 

[Darat]

No, that's because they rejected the claim of grooming, and that of trafficking, because there was a) insufficient evidence to support those claims, and b) evidence that Begum acted voluntarily and of her own volition.

The assessment of security risk has nothing at all to do with this particular topic.

Please show them rejecting grooming, it is not something they have had to consider as it is irrelevant to the laws that have been argued in court.

 

[Segnosaur]

Come off it. Think back to when you were fifteen. Can you honestly say hand on heart your peers or an older age group didn't persuade you to do, say or wear something that, looking back, you realise was utterly stupid and would never have happened were you an adult?

I agree that teenagers are often prone to doing "stupid" stuff (such as making really dumb fashion choices.)

But I don't think the situation really compares here.

You would hope that even someone as young as a teenager would put more thought and consideration into "should I go hang out with people who behead infidels" than they would "should I wear these funky shoes".

One of those items has significantly more ethical and personal implications than the other.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Sorry search for "GROUND 1" in that document which is: "16. GROUND 1: the Secretary of State failed to take into account an obviously material relevant consideration and/or failed to undertake proper inquiries into it, namely that Ms
Begum may have been a victim of trafficking in February 2015, and thereafter."

And Ground 1 was rejected by SIAC. We've gone over all this before.

 

[Wudang]

Please show them rejecting grooming, it is not something they have had to consider as it is irrelevant to the laws that have been argued in court.

They rejected Ground 1 (grooming) as tl;dr it was the Secretary of State's role to assess that and not the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The discussion starts on page 49.

258.Reasonable Secretaries of State could lawfully apply different policies to the exercise of the section 40 function. It is possible to envisage a perfectly lawful policy that precludes the decision-maker from depriving children at all, or from depriving them
without deciding whether they were or may have been trafficked. But that is not the policy that this Secretary of State implemented.
259.For all these reasons, the Commission is unable to accept Ms Knights’ argument that trafficking is relevant to the exercise of the section 40 power

 

[Olmstead]

Would you prefer that we ignore the only factual evidence that we have, and speculate based on our personal biases instead? I'd rather not, thanks all the same.
All we know for sure is that Begum's lawyers played the grooming card, and the courts rejected it. Unless, that is, you have some other source of information regarding the circumstances of her joining ISIS. Do you? I'd be more than happy to discuss it if you have.

What factual evidence?

Here's my evidence for her being groomed: The age of consent in the UK is 16. She was 15 went she went off to be an underage bride in a war zone at the behest of people much older than her, people who had influenced her into thinking that this was the right course of action through obviously manipulative means.

Meanwhile, the evidence against her being groomed is what? The fact that she agreed with the groomers? Hard to imagine how that could have come about.

And don't you dare tell me that the evidence of her not being groomed is that a court decided that she wasn't groomed.

 

[Wudang]

252.The Commission has already found that there is a credible suspicion that Ms Begum has been trafficked. Applying the principles in Rantsev, there is a credible suspicion that the State’s protective duties were violated back in 2015. On the evidence, there is also a credible suspicion that Ms Begum was harboured by her traffickers until January 2019. How, then, can these factors not be mandatory relevant considerations?

257.However, the proposition that the Secretary of State must view Ms Begum’s case through the lens of trafficking cannot be supported. This is not a mandatory relevant consideration, and there is an inherent question-begging in the contention that it is. On Ms Knights’ argument, the primary focus would not be national security but the fact that Ms Begum was groomed by others for the purposes of sexual exploitation. The Commission cannot accept that the Secretary of State should be compelled to view her case in these terms. Further, the trafficking analysis removes from consideration all questions of fact and degree. We have already made the point that the legal policy underlying Article 4 is not nuanced. Children cannot consent to sexual exploitation and the inquiry ends there. However, for the purposes of the broader considerations relevant to the proper exercise of the power under section 40, there is force in Sir James’ submission that issues of personal responsibility and agency are not black and white.

I read this as saying that she was groomed but that does not restrict the Secretary of State's power under section 40. To me, it keeps coming back to the fact that the SoS has very broad powers under section 40.

eta: I also read a shade of "it sucks but that's the law" but I am not an expert in legal language or phrasing.

 

[Ian Osborne]

She's just a sweet innocent child ... that poisonous monster.

You do realise these are the extreme ends of a very long line, not the only two possibilities?

 

[Roboramma]

And don't you dare tell me that the evidence of her not being groomed is that a court decided that she wasn't groomed.

It's worse than that, the court decided that whether or not she was groomed wasn't relevant to the question they were deciding upon. Cosmic Yak thinks this is evidence that she wasn't groomed, and better evidence than anything else we have available, including the clear reasoning you mention.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

What factual evidence?

The statements from Begum's lawyers, and Begum's own words.

Here's my evidence for her being groomed: The age of consent in the UK is 16. She was 15 went she went off to be an underage bride in a war zone at the behest of people much older than her, people who had influenced her into thinking that this was the right course of action through obviously manipulative means.

Let's talk definitions here for a moment. Begum was radicalised by online videos. She was fully aware of the atrocities that were being committed by ISIS, and she supported them. She came to believe that her role in assisting ISIS in their goals was to act as a housewife and mother to terrorists.
So, what then is the difference between radicalisation and grooming? I do believe this is an important distinction. 'Grooming' assumes that the primary goal is sexual exploitation. With 'radicalisation', though, the goal is ideological. There is evidence that Begum was involved in actual terrorism- this has been linked to upthread. This wasn't just about sex, and I think it a mistake to reduce it to that. What is your own definition of grooming, how would you distinguish that from radicalisation, and do you think that this is a relevant consideration?

Meanwhile, the evidence against her being groomed is what? The fact that she agreed with the groomers? Hard to imagine how that could have come about.

The SIAC court judgement goes into some detail about to what extent Begum's actions were voluntary. This is the evidence against her being groomed. She did this herself. To be sure, there was an element of manipulation: no-one becomes an extremist terrorist without a bit of persuasion, but to claim that this was entirely due to other people's actions is both naive, and contrary to what we know about this case.

And don't you dare tell me that the evidence of her not being groomed is that a court decided that she wasn't groomed.

Can you explain your objection to court deliberations? The lengthy and detailed discussions are here for you to read. What grounds do you have for rejecting them?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You do realise these are the extreme ends of a very long line, not the only two possibilities?

I do. However, I have yet to see anything from Begum to suggest that she is genuinely remorseful for her actions. She is upset that ISIS lost, and that she got caught, but no more than that. I simply cannot understand the constant excuses being made for her. These excuses contrast sharply with the reactions to, for example, the teenagers being arrested in the UK for participating in the recent riots. I haven't seen anyone making exuses for them. My opinion is that Begum's defenders are more motivated by ideology than by facts, and I am trying to highlight that in my posts.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I read this as saying that she was groomed but that does not restrict the Secretary of State's power under section 40. To me, it keeps coming back to the fact that the SoS has very broad powers under section 40.

eta: I also read a shade of "it sucks but that's the law" but I am not an expert in legal language or phrasing.

The definition of 'credible suspicion' is also relevant- it's mentioned in the ruling. Basically, it means 'it's possible'. No evidence is needed to support the claim. The judge actually says that this is a 'very low bar', and points out that Begum's lawyers were unable to supply any further evidence to support this claim.
There is also discussion in that document about grooming vs volition. They did cover this, and acknowledged that there was a mix of manipulation and voluntary action. This part appears to have been missed (or ignored) by Darat et al.

 

[Vixen]

I do. However, I have yet to see anything from Begum to suggest that she is genuinely remorseful for her actions. She is upset that ISIS lost, and that she got caught, but no more than that. I simply cannot understand the constant excuses being made for her. These excuses contrast sharply with the reactions to, for example, the teenagers being arrested in the UK for participating in the recent riots. I haven't seen anyone making exuses for them. My opinion is that Begum's defenders are more motivated by ideology than by facts, and I am trying to highlight that in my posts.

For goodness sake, have you never heard of Stockholm Syndrome? It is a real thing. Begum was in an environment where everybody had the same sociological ethos. It's like being a Brit, you grow up surrounded by a culture that assumes being conservative and singing 'Jerusalem' is quite normal...until you start mixing with other people (or simply grow up) and realise there is more to the world than meets the eye. In Begum's situation, there very much was an us ~vs~ them outlook that you get in times of war. I can recall people as late as the 1990's yelling 'Get the Jerry!' every time a famous German footballer touched the ball at a football match, and these were teenagers who hadn't even been born when WWII was going on; it was an anti-German attitude picked up from their parents and grandparents, dito, some people towards the Japanese because of what happened on POW camps . So, surrounded by fundamentalist Islam fanatics in a war situation where they are literally standing by the windows in Aleppo firing guns at Assad's forces, exchanging gunfire, it would be no surprise to discover Begum has these weird views after all these years, especially mixing with the same radicalised women in the refugee camps. She has been away from the UK all these years, remember? Of course her view of life is skewed from her lack of contact with British culture. It is rather silly to expect a great show of remorse when she hasn't even been debriefed as to the bigger picture. She has said she is sorry and would be willing to undergo criminal investigation. What more do you demand?

 

[Darat]

They rejected Ground 1 (grooming) as tl;dr it was the Secretary of State's role to assess that and not the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The discussion starts on page 49.

Yep. As I said whether she was groomed or not was not a matter of law that the courts have had to rule on in regards to the legal decisions they have made as it is irrelevant to those decisions.

 

[Darat]

I do. However, I have yet to see anything from Begum to suggest that she is genuinely remorseful for her actions. She is upset that ISIS lost, and that she got caught, but no more than that.

I've not seen anything either - but what has that to do with her being put on trial for her crimes, that is the type of issue that is dealt with by the judge when they decide on sentencing.

I simply cannot understand the constant excuses being made for her. These excuses contrast sharply with the reactions to, for example, the teenagers being arrested in the UK for participating in the recent riots. I haven't seen anyone making exuses for them. My opinion is that Begum's defenders are more motivated by ideology than by facts, and I am trying to highlight that in my posts.

What excuses? Has anyone said she shouldn't be put on trial for what she has done?

What defenders? Has anyone said she shouldn't be held responsible for her crimes?

Which ideology?