• 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

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...

No matter how many times you say this, it will never, ever be true. The British courts have not acted illegally, Begum has not been rendered stateless by the UK, and the fact that you don't like this changes nothing.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
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.
Click to expand...

You quote Darat saying that Begum supported Isis, and still spout this drivel?
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
You quote Darat saying that Begum supported Isis, and still spout this drivel?
Click to expand...

Yup. Apparently, in Darat's eyes, her support for ISIS has nothing to do with her running away to join ISIS, nor does that mean she is guilty of joining a terrorist organisation. No, in the world of Darat, everything Begum has done is someone else's fault.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
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.
Click to expand...

What a strange response given what I have posted on this matter in the past.

I do assume that all 15 year olds that are groomed and then sex-trafficked are innocent, so yes, I do believe she was an "innocent victim" of such grooming. Do you really not think that all children who are groomed are innocent?

I also believe that later, when older she did support ISIS and probably at least aided and abetted them in their barbarism. That is why I have repeatedly said she needs to stand trial for her crimes. Now in the UK justice system that means it must start with the presumption of innocence and the state has to prove that she was guilty of the crimes she is charged with. So in a technical sense as someone who believes in the philosophical views behind the UK justice I do have to say she is "innocent". But that is only in the matter of any trial, my current view from what I think I know is that she is guilty and therefore should be in jail when she comes back (but of course only after a trial). I do think her initial grooming needs to be taken into account during sentencing.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Yup. Apparently, in Darat's eyes, her support for ISIS has nothing to do with her running away to join ISIS, nor does that mean she is guilty of joining a terrorist organisation. No, in the world of Darat, everything Begum has done is someone else's fault.
Click to expand...

For the record my first post in this thread back in 2019:

Darat said:
Although she was a kid when she was groomed at some point she has to treated as the adult she now is. So if she returned she should be put on trail and if found guilty jailed etc.

As for her child, it should be removed as soon as possible and placed for adoption, her immediate family should not be able to apply for custody, they have shown they are unfit to raise children.
Click to expand...
 
Darat said:
What a strange response given what I have posted on this matter in the past.

I do assume that all 15 year olds that are groomed and then sex-trafficked are innocent, so yes, I do believe she was an "innocent victim" of such grooming. Do you really not think that all children who are groomed are innocent?

I also believe that later, when older she did support ISIS and probably at least aided and abetted them in their barbarism. That is why I have repeatedly said she needs to stand trial for her crimes. Now in the UK justice system that means it must start with the presumption of innocence and the state has to prove that she was guilty of the crimes she is charged with. So in a technical sense as someone who believes in the philosophical views behind the UK justice I do have to say she is "innocent". But that is only in the matter of any trial, my current view from what I think I know is that she is guilty and therefore should be in jail when she comes back (but of course only after a trial). I do think her initial grooming needs to be taken into account during sentencing.
Click to expand...

This is the problem, right here. The courts have repeatedly rejected the attempts by Begum's lawyers that she was groomed and trafficked. You resolutely ignore this, and cling stubbornly to this disproven claim.
 
I'm sure children so commonly leave their home countries to travel to war zones, that the courts consider it normal.
 
Can we note, once again, that the age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10. This applies to everyone, even 15-year-olds. Even brown 15-year-olds. Even brown, female, Muslim 15-year-olds. She was, in the eyes of the law, old enough to know what she was doing, old enough to distinguish between right and wrong, and old enough to accept responsibility for her own actions. No amount of bleeding-heart handwringing will change that: nor do I think it should.
 
Nor does Darat, as he wants her to stand trial for her criminal decisions. The courts are abdicating their responsibility by refusing to even try her.

Also, criminal responsibility does not make a child not a child, no matter if she's brown, female, or Muslim. This Brit should stand trial for her actions as a British child, stolen right out of her country under the noses of those who should have been protecting her.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
This is the problem, right here. The courts have repeatedly rejected the attempts by Begum's lawyers that she was groomed and trafficked. You resolutely ignore this, and cling stubbornly to this disproven claim.
Click to expand...

Which judgements referred to her grooming?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
This is the problem, right here. The courts have repeatedly rejected the attempts by Begum's lawyers that she was groomed and trafficked. You resolutely ignore this, and cling stubbornly to this disproven claim.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
This is the problem, right here. The courts have repeatedly rejected the attempts by Begum's lawyers that she was groomed and trafficked. You resolutely ignore this, and cling stubbornly to this disproven claim.
Click to expand...

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'.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
Nor does Darat, as he wants her to stand trial for her criminal decisions. The courts are abdicating their responsibility by refusing to even try her.

Also, criminal responsibility does not make a child not a child, no matter if she's brown, female, or Muslim. This Brit should stand trial for her actions as a British child, stolen right out of her country under the noses of those who should have been protecting her.
Click to expand...

Your last sentence says it all. She's just a sweet innocent child, butter wouldn't melt in her mouth, why is everyone being so mean to her?
She made her choice. She can live with it. I'm shedding no tears for that poisonous monster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom