"Jihadi Bride" story

[Saintslass]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Yup.

And, in order to ensure we stay that way, people who require it, are able to receive legal aid.

So everything in this case is as it should be.

I disagree when it comes to legal aid which should be available only for those who truly need it, not for someone who now fancies returning to an easy life in the UK because her precious caliphate has been destroyed.

I have no sympathy for the woman at all and so I will leave it there.

[Niels]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

You might want to go back and read everyone else's posts on this thread. Yet again, it seems that your creating a completely incorrect collective view to argue against. And then, in this case, completely fail to argue against it anyway.

Still, if you're happy for the Home Secretary to have the unchallengeable right to strip someone of citizenship then go ahead. I'm just more of a fan of laws and rights, and the ability to hold the state to account.

I have read your posts on the thread. I think it is fair to say you were a bit reluctant to believe that she was a participant in anything whilst a member of ISIS. You kept asking for evidence which is fair enough if you were not aware of the roles of women within ISIS in countries such as Syria. 

Now there is evidence. 

I didn't comment at all about the powers of the Home Secretary - I would need to research these before deciding. 

I am open minded enough to say that I thought both Dave and Saint's Lass came up with plausible suggestions. 

 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Saintslass said:

There is a fine line between being a fair and just society and putting citizens at risk in order to appear fair and just.  It is NOT fair and just to citizens to knowingly put them at risk.

There are presently discussion about holding trials in Iraq.  Quite a few countries have expressed interest in this.  Those countries would all pay for any jihadis found guilty to be jailed in Iraq.  

I think leaving British Citizens who are allegedly committing terrorist attacks for others to deal with is irresponsible and hardly goes with the thinking of protecting citizens. 

Surely if your core aim here is to protect citizens from people like this, wouldn't you want to see the book thrown at them?

Why don't you want them brought to justice?

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Niels said:

I have read your posts on the thread. I think it is fair to say you were a bit reluctant to believe that she was a participant in anything whilst a member of ISIS. You kept asking for evidence which is fair enough if you were not aware of the roles of women within ISIS in countries such as Syria. 

Now there is evidence. 

I didn't comment at all about the powers of the Home Secretary - I would need to research these before deciding. 

I am open minded enough to say that I thought both Dave and Saint's Lass came up with plausible suggestions. 

 

When this discussion first came up, there was no evidence, and even the politicians were using phrases like 'if she has done anything wrong' - meaning there was no public evidence of crimes (hearsay doesn't count) I think the default position should be to ask for evidence, I think we are in a really dangerous place if that is seen as a contrary view.

Now this evidence is being leaked to the media at a rather interesting time in the case, if they have the evidence, surely the most responsible thing to keep people safe is to charge her and lock her up.

[JDINTHEHIZZOUSE]

I think the Home Secretary is perhaps trying to set a trump style precedent,it's not for me to argue the legalities as I don't have the legal knowledge to make a valid argument despite what my views on this topic maybe,however,would a simpler solution to all this be that she is bought back to this country and charged with joint enterprise? Given the core and severity of the atrocities carried out then any conviction under joint enterprise would carry the maximum tariff. (Side note,when this story first broke I was delighted that she wasn't going to be allowed back home,having had time to reflect I think quite the opposite as she should be held accountable for her actions)

[Niels]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

When this discussion first came up, there was no evidence, and even the politicians were using phrases like 'if she has done anything wrong' - meaning there was no public evidence of crimes (hearsay doesn't count) I think the default position should be to ask for evidence, I think we are in a really dangerous place if that is seen as a contrary view.

Now this evidence is being leaked to the media at a rather interesting time in the case, if they have the evidence, surely the most responsible thing to keep people safe is to charge her and lock her up.

I understand what you are saying Dave in normal situations. 

However we are talking about membership of ISIS here though. I think it is reasonable to assume someone joining and travelling to Syria is not going to be benign. A role is found for everyone usually. 

I agree there needs to be evidence but that the default position should be that it is likely to be there. 

Just as we would assume someone joining the KKK or a football firm is likely to be involved in or abetting violence.

 

[Dave T]

51 minutes ago, Niels said:

I understand what you are saying Dave in normal situations. 

However we are talking about membership of ISIS here though. I think it is reasonable to assume someone joining and travelling to Syria is not going to be benign. A role is found for everyone usually. 

I agree there needs to be evidence but that the default position should be that it is likely to be there. 

Just as we would assume someone joining the KKK or a football firm is likely to be involved in or abetting violence.

 

I'm not so sure. I think we should insist on there being evidence.

I'm not sure whether joining these organisations is a punishable offence, if it is, we don't need to insinuate anything. If it isnt, I'd have no issues with being members of a terrorist organisation being punishable. 

[Shadow]

53 minutes ago, Niels said:

I understand what you are saying Dave in normal situations. 

However we are talking about membership of ISIS here though. I think it is reasonable to assume someone joining and travelling to Syria is not going to be benign. A role is found for everyone usually. 

I agree there needs to be evidence but that the default position should be that it is likely to be there. 

Just as we would assume someone joining the KKK or a football firm is likely to be involved in or abetting violence.

 

We haven't yet repealed magna carta have we?

Innocent until proven guilty?

[Saintslass]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I'm not so sure. I think we should insist on there being evidence.

I'm not sure whether joining these organisations is a punishable offence, if it is, we don't need to insinuate anything. If it isnt, I'd have no issues with being members of a terrorist organisation being punishable. 

She joined a proscribed organisation.  That's an offence right there.

I'm stunned at your willingness to give her the benefit of the doubt here.  She went on TV and showed no remorse for being part of an organisation which blew up young girls in Manchester, which stabbed people and ran them over on two bridges in London, which burned people alive in the ME, raped, beheaded, blew people up.  Yet here you are, giving her the benefit of the doubt and she didn't even express an iota of remorse, regret or anything resembling reformation.  I'm stunned.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

She joined a proscribed organisation.  That's an offence right there.

I'm stunned at your willingness to give her the benefit of the doubt here.  She went on TV and showed no remorse for being part of an organisation which blew up young girls in Manchester, which stabbed people and ran them over on two bridges in London, which burned people alive in the ME, raped, beheaded, blew people up.  Yet here you are, giving her the benefit of the doubt and she didn't even express an iota of remorse, regret or anything resembling reformation.  I'm stunned.

What benefit of the doubt am I giving by wanting her punished for any crimes in accordance with our laws?

But if there is no evidence of wrongdoing, that isnt benefit of the doubt, there is no evidence. I find it bizarre people want people punished with no evidence. Benefit of the doubt shouldn't come into it.

[Griff9of13]

10 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

She joined a proscribed organisation.  That's an offence right there.

I'm stunned at your willingness to give her the benefit of the doubt here.  She went on TV and showed no remorse for being part of an organisation which blew up young girls in Manchester, which stabbed people and ran them over on two bridges in London, which burned people alive in the ME, raped, beheaded, blew people up.  Yet here you are, giving her the benefit of the doubt and she didn't even express an iota of remorse, regret or anything resembling reformation.  I'm stunned.

It's not about giving her anything, it's about upholding the standards of British law. If she has committed these crimes then she should be tried in a court of law and punished appropriately.

[Chris22]

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2019/04/15/shamima-begum-may-not-deserve-your-sympathy-but-she-is-entitled-to-legal-aid/

It's worth taking 5 minutes to read this. 

This provides more context that the tabloid hyperbole. This goes beyond the myths that we line the pockets of criminals. You may not agree with it, but it's certainly worth reading the context and digging a little deeper.

(and this one, for a look beyond the Begum story - https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/10/why-we-need-legal-aid-for-the-worst-people-in-society/ )

[Saintslass]

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

What benefit of the doubt am I giving by wanting her punished for any crimes in accordance with our laws?

But if there is no evidence of wrongdoing, that isnt benefit of the doubt, there is no evidence. I find it bizarre people want people punished with no evidence. Benefit of the doubt shouldn't come into it.

Did you not watch the interviews she gave?  The comment she made about the Manchester bombing?

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Saintslass said:

Did you not watch the interviews she gave?  The comment she made about the Manchester bombing?

I'm not sure what point you are making. 

I have been pretty consistent here (and other threads) in that we should use our justice system to punish any crimes committed.

But on the Manchester bombing point, yes I did listen to and read the interview she gave. She has a warped view of the world, as do many people, and I don't find that surprising in the slightest considering where she has been living and what she has been exposed to since she was 15 years old. 

But I would like to highlight a minor inaccuracy in some of your avid reporting of this interview, as well as justifying it by comparing it to the attacks on women and children in Syria, she does also say "I do feel that is wrong. Innocent people did get killed,” she said. “It’s one thing to kill a soldier, it’s fine, it’s self-defence. But to kill people like women and children, just like the women and children in Baghuz who are being killed right now unjustly by the bombings. It’s a two-way thing really.”

Begum continued: “This is kind of retaliation. Their justification was that it was retaliation so I thought that is a fair justification. That was unfair on them … They weren’t fighting anyone. They weren’t causing any harm. But neither was I and neither [were the] other women who are being killed right now back in Baghuz.”

 But, none of the above is in the slightest bit relevant to wanting us to adhere to our tried and tested justice system and not wash our hands of her and others like her.

[Bob8]

Before this thread was revived, it was split between

- those who thought she should face trial and punishment in accordance with the law. Doing legally to show the acts were punishable and showing we are more civilized than ISIS. 

- those who felt their feelings were not pampered to by the law and preferred arbitrary punishment, even though it would be a gift to those trying to persuade young Muslims that British society was no place for them. 

Of course, the second group were making up that the first group were saying there should be no punishment, presumably as they did not want to admit reality. 

Has anything changed since then?

[Saintslass]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

But on the Manchester bombing point, yes I did listen to and read the interview she gave. She has a warped view of the world, as do many people, and I don't find that surprising in the slightest considering where she has been living and what she has been exposed to since she was 15 years old. 

She chose to go there at 15 years old.  She made plans, deceived her parents, arranged flights, made contacts, etc, etc.  I couldn't have done any of that at 15 years old but she did.  She is now over 19 years old, a fully fledged adult and yet she did not come home at any time until the caliphate was destroyed and even then she continues to justify the ISIS ideology.  Evidence is now coming to light that far from being 'just the housewife' she claimed she was while with ISIS, she may well have been very much involved in the work of ISIS itself.  This adds to the evidence given by herself of her own lack of remorse or reversal in belief when she spoke about the Manchester bombing.

Lots of people do indeed have a warped sense of the world but lots of people do not meticulously plan, deceive and then activate their plans to join an especially barbaric Islamist death cult.  

[Saintslass]

2 hours ago, Bob8 said:

- those who thought she should face trial and punishment in accordance with the law. 

It is perfectly legal to strip someone of their citizenship in exceptional circumstances as long as that person is not left stateless in the process.  Others have been similarly stripped of their citizenship and only two have successfully appealed.  

It is perfectly legal for her to be refused entry into the UK for up to two years regardless of her citizenship or anything else.

So those 'in the second group' were also promoting action within the law.

[Shadow]

5 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

She chose to go there at 15 years old.  She made plans, deceived her parents, arranged flights, made contacts, etc, etc.  I couldn't have done any of that at 15 years old but she did.  She is now over 19 years old, a fully fledged adult and yet she did not come home at any time until the caliphate was destroyed and even then she continues to justify the ISIS ideology.  Evidence is now coming to light that far from being 'just the housewife' she claimed she was while with ISIS, she may well have been very much involved in the work of ISIS itself.  This adds to the evidence given by herself of her own lack of remorse or reversal in belief when she spoke about the Manchester bombing.

Lots of people do indeed have a warped sense of the world but lots of people do not meticulously plan, deceive and then activate their plans to join an especially barbaric Islamist death cult.  

There is a difference, and I’m surprised you didn’t already know this, between newspaper reports and evidence.

[Shadow]

3 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

It is perfectly legal to strip someone of their citizenship in exceptional circumstances as long as that person is not left stateless in the process.  Others have been similarly stripped of their citizenship and only two have successfully appealed.  

It is perfectly legal for her to be refused entry into the UK for up to two years regardless of her citizenship or anything else.

So those 'in the second group' were also promoting action within the law.

Yes, and she can challenge it on the basis that it leaves her stateless and our legal system will provide her with assistance to fund this challenge.

Isn’t living in a civilised country the best thing?

we are secure enough to support the most vulnerable even when they oppose many of the things we hold dear, that’s because some of the things we hold dearest are the rule of law and the protection of individuals rights.

We are, it must be said, bloody great.

[Private Baldrick]

4 minutes ago, Shadow said:

There is a difference, and I’m surprised you didn’t already know this, between newspaper reports and evidence.

But on the Brexit thread all the newspaper reports of the impending Armageddon ARE evidence? Selective usage of the media perhaps to back up one's own slant on a story?

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Private Baldrick said:

But on the Brexit thread all the newspaper reports of the impending Armageddon ARE evidence? Selective usage of the media perhaps to back up one's own slant on a story?

Evidence to be debated. Because evidence is not proof. That's why it runs to several hundred pages over there.

But it's irrelevant. Some people seem to think the Home Secretary's political decision should not be challenged in the courts. Presumably because they trust politicians and the media so much that they can't see why one would need an independent judiciary.

[gingerjon]

3 hours ago, Bob8 said:

Has anything changed since then?

Clocks have gone forward.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Saintslass said:

She chose to go there at 15 years old.  She made plans, deceived her parents, arranged flights, made contacts, etc, etc.  I couldn't have done any of that at 15 years old but she did.  She is now over 19 years old, a fully fledged adult and yet she did not come home at any time until the caliphate was destroyed and even then she continues to justify the ISIS ideology.  Evidence is now coming to light that far from being 'just the housewife' she claimed she was while with ISIS, she may well have been very much involved in the work of ISIS itself.  This adds to the evidence given by herself of her own lack of remorse or reversal in belief when she spoke about the Manchester bombing.

 Lots of people do indeed have a warped sense of the world but lots of people do not meticulously plan, deceive and then activate their plans to join an especially barbaric Islamist death cult.  

Again, I am not sure of the debate we are having. If she is guilty of these crimes, I expect her to be punished by our justice system. I didn't think our justice system's approach was just to abandon people. 

[Griff9of13]

2 hours ago, Private Baldrick said:

But on the Brexit thread all the newspaper reports of the impending Armageddon ARE evidence? Selective usage of the media perhaps to back up one's own slant on a story?

No one is predicting Armageddon. You are making stuff up.

"Armageddon: a dramatic and catastrophic conflict, especially one seen as likely to destroy the world or the human race."

[Saintslass]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

Again, I am not sure of the debate we are having. If she is guilty of these crimes, I expect her to be punished by our justice system. I didn't think our justice system's approach was just to abandon people. 

You are implying that unless she is brought back to the UK to face trial in our courts, the Home Secretary is breaking the law.  I am contesting that because the Home Secretary is legally allowed to keep her out of the UK for up to two years regardless, and is allowed to withdraw her British citizenship as long as she is not made stateless in the process, he is acting within the law.  You might not like either or both of those laws but he is still acting within the law.

I don't see withdrawing citizenship for what used to be considered treason (fighting for/being actively sympathetic towards the nation's enemy) as an example of 'abandoning' people.  I see it as justice.