• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ISIS teenager wants to come home

Chris_Halkides said:
In 2022 The Guardian reported, "British sources, however, said they believed there was no suggestion that Begum travelled involuntarily to Syria, despite her young age. Officials believe she aligned herself with IS by remaining with the group in Syria and Iraq past the age of 18, and that she posed a security risk to the UK." Inasmuch as she was 15, I don't follow this logic. Governments restrict behavior of young people in many ways. They do so on the principle that one has to be mature enough to make an informed choice (or at least that is my understanding).
Click to expand...

Problem is, this case was heard in camera in a closed court. Not even Begum's defence lawyers were allowed to know the details of the case against her.

There was a journalist who befriended her for about a year at the Syrian camp (=good story for him). Then he turned on her and said she had only dressed in a trendy 'western' way to try to influence opinion. So maybe he is the 'intelligence' behind the claim she is a security risk.
 
The thing is she has to exhaust domestic remedies before going to ECHR. So she will go to ECHR next, this will be prioritised because it has broad application for many children taken to Iraq, and abandoned by European governments.
 
Darat said:
Doubt they will take it, our courts already take the treaty into account in these types of decisions.
Click to expand...

The thing is though, rendering a person stateless like the UK has done breaks a whol load of international laws.

Just because the UK doesn't want to remain within the rule of law on this issue, it does not follow that the relevant international courts are going to just shrug their shoulders.
 
Vixen said:
There was a journalist who befriended her for about a year at the Syrian camp (=good story for him). Then he turned on her and said she had only dressed in a trendy 'western' way to try to influence opinion. So maybe he is the 'intelligence' behind the claim she is a security risk.
Click to expand...

Or maybe the journalist was being honest.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
The thing is though, rendering a person stateless like the UK has done breaks a whol load of international laws.

Just because the UK doesn't want to remain within the rule of law on this issue, it does not follow that the relevant international courts are going to just shrug their shoulders.
Click to expand...

It breaks no laws, this point has been discussed to death.
 
"All the other countries have decided that you have to let a known enemy of your country back in your borders" presented as a logical and moral high ground is one of those "go outside, touch grass" moments of "You're too deep in the weeds to see the point."
 
Planigale said:
The thing is she has to exhaust domestic remedies before going to ECHR. So she will go to ECHR next, this will be prioritised because it has broad application for many children taken to Iraq, and abandoned by European governments.
Click to expand...

I don't think they will take it.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"All the other countries have decided that you have to let a known enemy of your country back in your borders" presented as a logical and moral high ground is one of those "go outside, touch grass" moments of "You're too deep in the weeds to see the point."
Click to expand...

The argument is not that in the slightest, and that's not the argument that's been used in court by either side.
 
Steve said:
Makes perfect sense that a body elected by all citizens should have the final word on creation or abolition of a law. This is the fundamental tenet of a democracy.

Allowing an unelected and politically appointed body to overrule the decisions of the people's elected representatives, as is the case in some countries, is the antithesis of a true democracy.
Click to expand...

I think it maintains a good balance, from a separation of powers perspective. In the US, the Supreme Court having the ability to review and overturn laws based on the Constitution is a powerful check against the legislature.

However, it only functions as a check so long as its decisions seem legitimate under the reasoning provided. If it starts looking like, "We're overturning this because we want to and we can," it starts losing its power, because it controls neither money nor armed force. All it has is technical authority, which relies on the willingness of people that HAVE money or force to abide by it, either by the significance of their personal oath, or pressure from the population. Both of those are eroded if they act in too partisan of a manner.

That's already seeming to happen currently and it's worrisome. Ideally, in response Americans will start putting pressure on the other two branches of government to choose more principled individuals.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
In 2022 The Guardian reported, "British sources, however, said they believed there was no suggestion that Begum travelled involuntarily to Syria, despite her young age. Officials believe she aligned herself with IS by remaining with the group in Syria and Iraq past the age of 18, and that she posed a security risk to the UK." Inasmuch as she was 15, I don't follow this logic. Governments restrict behavior of young people in many ways. They do so on the principle that one has to be mature enough to make an informed choice (or at least that is my understanding).
Click to expand...

At the time the three girls left it was stated that they could return and it was clearly understood that they travelled under the influence of others.
The argument seems to be that if they stayed aligned with IS after the age of 18 they are now responsible. That seems to me a very weak argument since they had little option but to align with IS once they were in Syria. I doubt she is a security risk to the UK but if she is, then the risk is the same for anywhere else and the UK should take responsibility since we allowed this to happen. It was also partly due to incompetence of authorities that evidence of radicalisation and grooming was not acted on at the time.
 
My view remains the same.

She doesn't have any other nationality than British.
She was groomed
She was sex trafficked across the EU
She entered into a forced marriage
She supported ISIS

She should be repatriated to the UK, she should go on trial for her support of ISIS, that she was groomed and sex trafficked needs to be taken into account if she is found guilty of that crime. If a jail sentence is the appropriate punishment after due process and a guilty decision then she should be treated like other British citizen found guilty of such crimes. I assume after release she would remain on our "watch list".
 
If there is evidence of radicalisation and grooming, this is also partly due to incompetence and negligence of her parents - who, apparently, were not very interested in the life of their daughter.
 
aniri said:
If there is evidence of radicalisation and grooming, this is also partly due to incompetence and negligence of her parents - who, apparently, were not very interested in the life of their daughter.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the letters intended to warn the parents about the online radicalisation were for some bizarre reason given to the girls at school to give to their parents (of course they didn't). My memory is a little hazy on details but I don't think the parents were properly informed. Of course you can say that they should have known anyway, but it's not exactly uncommon for parents to have trouble regulating what their children do online.
 
aniri said:
If there is evidence of radicalisation and grooming, this is also partly due to incompetence and negligence of her parents - who, apparently, were not very interested in the life of their daughter.
Click to expand...

Hence why in any sexual grooming case the parents should go to prison too no matter what they did or didn't do.

You conviced me we should render her parents stateless.
 
Elaedith said:
My memory is a little hazy on details but I don't think the parents were properly informed. Of course you can say that they should have known anyway, but it's not exactly uncommon for parents to have trouble regulating what their children do online.
Click to expand...

I understand, but I think it's very bad. People rely on schools, authorities, goverment etc. - instead of taking personal responsibility and doing proper parenting.
 
Strasbourg

The World Socialist Web Site wrote, "Begum’s lawyers at Birnberg Peirce will take her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The lawyers said, 'It is a matter of the gravest concern that British women and children have been arbitrarily imprisoned in a Syrian camp for five years, all detained indefinitely without any prospect of a trial.

'All other countries in the UK’s position have intervened and achieved the return of their citizens and their children.'"
 
Chris_Halkides said:
The World Socialist Web Site wrote, "Begum’s lawyers at Birnberg Peirce will take her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The lawyers said, 'It is a matter of the gravest concern that British women and children have been arbitrarily imprisoned in a Syrian camp for five years, all detained indefinitely without any prospect of a trial.

'All other countries in the UK’s position have intervened and achieved the return of their citizens and their children.'"
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that article doesn’t say on what grounds the appeal is going to be made on. I still think the court won’t take the case.
 
Darat said:
My view remains the same.

She doesn't have any other nationality than British.
She was groomed
She was sex trafficked across the EU
She entered into a forced marriage
She supported ISIS

She should be repatriated to the UK, she should go on trial for her support of ISIS, that she was groomed and sex trafficked needs to be taken into account if she is found guilty of that crime. If a jail sentence is the appropriate punishment after due process and a guilty decision then she should be treated like other British citizen found guilty of such crimes. I assume after release she would remain on our "watch list".
Click to expand...

Yep. This seems to me to be the most reasonable view.
 
Darat said:
My view remains the same.

She doesn't have any other nationality than British.
She was groomed
She was sex trafficked across the EU
She entered into a forced marriage
She supported ISIS

She should be repatriated to the UK, she should go on trial for her support of ISIS, that she was groomed and sex trafficked needs to be taken into account if she is found guilty of that crime. If a jail sentence is the appropriate punishment after due process and a guilty decision then she should be treated like other British citizen found guilty of such crimes. I assume after release she would remain on our "watch list".
Click to expand...

Yup. You have decided that, no matter what the actual facts are, Begum was an innocent victim, and not to blame for anything she has ever done. We know that. You've made that very clear, and going over the facts again will not shake your misapprehensions in the slightest.
What I'm not sure about is why you apparently take some pride in this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom