Getting back to the subject, I would prefer that no country of origin take these girls/women back. We've seen what radicalized people can do (Boston Marathon bombing) & I for one don't want them turned loose here. Especially those who think they did nothing wrong. We have enough crazies walking our streets.
Shamima Begum and Hoda Muthana
- Thread starter SHARPIE
- Start date
What would you suggest be done with her and her baby, bearing in mind that they are currently in a refugee camp in Syria and that her husband, a Dutch convert to Islam, has recently surrendered to a group of Syrian fighters (apparently not the Syrian Army but rather some rebel group)?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47301623
That baby will grow up to be a man, and if his mother is not brought to justice or somehow led to a more enlightened mindset, she could be very dangerous wherever she may be, as could he.
This is a situation where it is easy to suggest what should not happen but difficult to know what should be done.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47301623
That baby will grow up to be a man, and if his mother is not brought to justice or somehow led to a more enlightened mindset, she could be very dangerous wherever she may be, as could he.
This is a situation where it is easy to suggest what should not happen but difficult to know what should be done.
I don't have a solution but I just know I don't want radicalized people here. I hope wiser heads than mine can devise a solution that makes sense. I don't trust Hoda, she is spouting what we all want to hear but it doesn't sound sincere. Will Yemen take her? I think she has family there & there's some doubt about whether she is actually a US citizen since her father was a diplomat in the US at the time of her birth. If that's true she is a Yemen citizen but either way she could claim Yemen.
What to do with Shamina is even harder. It is clear she is not repentant in the least & could be a danger to the UK.
What to do with Shamina is even harder. It is clear she is not repentant in the least & could be a danger to the UK.
I don't see how Begen can be stripped of her citizenship now Bangladesh has said they wouldn't give her citizenship.
The reality is that she holds no other citizenship and is a born UK national. It would seem ridiculous that country could strip a person of their citizenship and foist them on another they have a link to but no citizenship, and in fact have never been to.
I don't see how we have any choice but to take her back and put her on trial.
The reality is that she holds no other citizenship and is a born UK national. It would seem ridiculous that country could strip a person of their citizenship and foist them on another they have a link to but no citizenship, and in fact have never been to.
I don't see how we have any choice but to take her back and put her on trial.
I would prefer murderers, rapists and thieves didn't exist in the society that I live in, but the solution to dealing with people who commit crimes is not to dump them on other countries who are even poorer and lack the resources to deal with threats to global security.
I agree. I don't like it - but I agree. Its difficult to justify putting "our" problems in someone else's house. If they can evidence strong links to the country (e.g. I have friends who spent most summer's in their parents' countries of origin, or if they actually have obtained citizenship) then maybe. But if she's genuinely never been there I don't see how you move forward with this approach. Having a *right* to citizenship isn't the same as having citizenship. I have a *right* to dual citizenship with two other countries through my parents. One I have never visited the other I have visited for short holidays on 4 occasions. It wouldn't be right to foist me off on either if I turned out to be a rotten apple.
I hate the idea of tax money being spent on permanent surveillance on her and those like her and I dislike the march towards the nanny state generally. BUT that might be what it takes in some cases. Its clear every time she opens her mouth that she's a problem. Unfortunately on that basis at most they could get her for hate speech... I doubt they can prove an actual crime however sickening her apparent indifference to the atrocities she's witnessed is to the rest of us.
So if they can't lock her up they better keep a very close eye on her and maybe its better that's done here than attempting to do it from across the globe. If she's a problem/danger keeping her physically out of the country won't make her less so.
I hate the idea of tax money being spent on permanent surveillance on her and those like her and I dislike the march towards the nanny state generally. BUT that might be what it takes in some cases. Its clear every time she opens her mouth that she's a problem. Unfortunately on that basis at most they could get her for hate speech... I doubt they can prove an actual crime however sickening her apparent indifference to the atrocities she's witnessed is to the rest of us.
So if they can't lock her up they better keep a very close eye on her and maybe its better that's done here than attempting to do it from across the globe. If she's a problem/danger keeping her physically out of the country won't make her less so.
Last edited:
The British (and U.S.) governments might put her under permanent surveillance wherever she is.
Stripping her of citizenship and denying her a right of re-entry (albeit under the risk of criminal prosecution) are "feel good" measures that do not necessarily serve any legitimate policy goal.
Stripping her of citizenship and denying her a right of re-entry (albeit under the risk of criminal prosecution) are "feel good" measures that do not necessarily serve any legitimate policy goal.
Well, it depends on whether she has the right to request the Bangladeshi citizenship, or whether she actually has the citizenship just by being born to Bangladeshi citizens. If she automatically has the citizenship, (even if she has never been in that country and doesn’t actually have their passport), then UK has the right to take away her citizenship. (Whether it is right thing to do or not may be a different matter, but taking away her citizenship will jot make her stateless. But if she just might be eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship and doesn’t have it automatically, then I don’t think UK can take the British citizen status away from her.
I don't know enough about this, but I am wondering in all three cases (Begum, Hoda & the Canadian lady) if the respective country's laws would allow them back into the country, but be able to block them from having a passport in future and from doing any international travel?
- Messages
- 14,001
- Ratings
I don’t believe these women are innocent or repetant and are at best a headache and at worst a domestic terrorist situation at worst.
That being said, I do believe in the rule of law ESPECIALLY in high-emotion cases. To not allow them back to their respective countries IMO sets a very dangerous precedent and could have us go down roads best not traveled. I am uncomfortable with Alabama Isis roaming the US, but I’m *more* uncomfortable with the idea that citizenship can extralegally be stripped from you which could be breaking international laws.
I think it’s in everyone’s best interest to immediately arrest all three upon entrance, have a trial (a real one by the laws of their countries), and do everything to repatriate them while they serve time.
That being said, I do believe in the rule of law ESPECIALLY in high-emotion cases. To not allow them back to their respective countries IMO sets a very dangerous precedent and could have us go down roads best not traveled. I am uncomfortable with Alabama Isis roaming the US, but I’m *more* uncomfortable with the idea that citizenship can extralegally be stripped from you which could be breaking international laws.
I think it’s in everyone’s best interest to immediately arrest all three upon entrance, have a trial (a real one by the laws of their countries), and do everything to repatriate them while they serve time.
That was exactly my point.
When it was first reported the language I saw was "she has dual citizenship with Bangladesh" and is therefore not made stateless. That changed to "she has a right to Bangladehi citizenship through her Bangladesh-born mother". Those are not the same thing.
I didn't check before, but for what it's worth here's what wiki says (top result on a search of the subject):
"The law regulates the nationality and citizenship status of all people who live in Bangladesh as well as all people who are of Bangladeshi descent. It allows the children of expatriates, foreigners as well as residents in Bangladesh to examine their citizenship status and if necessary, apply for and obtain citizenship of Bangladesh."
So under that definition she has a right not automatic citizenship - which aligns with my knowledge of the West Indies and friends experiences with India. I assume that given Bangladesh has categorically said that she will not be welcome that puts the ball firmly in the UK again (as she presumably is in fact stateless based on what they have done). Most countries have rules for granting citizenship and I think one of those is usually around actually being a good citizen so I don't imagine Bangladesh would have an obligation to grant her citizenship... only to consider an application...
When it was first reported the language I saw was "she has dual citizenship with Bangladesh" and is therefore not made stateless. That changed to "she has a right to Bangladehi citizenship through her Bangladesh-born mother". Those are not the same thing.
I didn't check before, but for what it's worth here's what wiki says (top result on a search of the subject):
"The law regulates the nationality and citizenship status of all people who live in Bangladesh as well as all people who are of Bangladeshi descent. It allows the children of expatriates, foreigners as well as residents in Bangladesh to examine their citizenship status and if necessary, apply for and obtain citizenship of Bangladesh."
So under that definition she has a right not automatic citizenship - which aligns with my knowledge of the West Indies and friends experiences with India. I assume that given Bangladesh has categorically said that she will not be welcome that puts the ball firmly in the UK again (as she presumably is in fact stateless based on what they have done). Most countries have rules for granting citizenship and I think one of those is usually around actually being a good citizen so I don't imagine Bangladesh would have an obligation to grant her citizenship... only to consider an application...
Shamima Begum baby death 'a stain on conscience of UK government'
Is this the result the people who agreed with the decision to revoke Begum's citizenship wanted? It was a foreseeable consequence.
Is this the result the people who agreed with the decision to revoke Begum's citizenship wanted? It was a foreseeable consequence.
No, of course the people didn’t want the child to die, but the child’s death is the result of Begum’s actions, not the politicians or FSU posters. The child died because his mother decided to move to a country without a proper medical care or any sanitary conditions. The child didn’t die because she lost her citizenship. Losing her citizenship didn’t magically transport her to a refugee camp; she managed to get there herself. While I feel really sorry for the poor child, I don’t feel any guilt that she is stuck there.
I very seldom use the
emoticon for things that people write here on FSU. In your case, however, I must make an exception. The only reason why the baby ever was born was because his mother left the U.K. and met the baby's future father. To say that the baby died because of the very events that gave him life is ridiculous.
The mother then gave birth in a refugee camp in Syria and tried to go back to the U.K. with her son, who, like her was a British citizen. Instead of being compassionate and trying to get them out, the British Government revoked the mother's citizenship and refused to let her return home. And, as far as I can see, it made no attempt to bring the baby back to the U.K., as the mother's family wished, and where his relatives would have cared for him.
ETA: Being compassionate does not mean not prosecuting someone for her crimes. She should be prosecuted if she ever steps foot on British soil.
I very seldom use the
emoticon for things that people write here on FSU. In your case, however, I must make an exception. The only reason why the baby ever was born was because his mother left the U.K. and met the baby's future father. To say that the baby died because of the very events that gave him life is ridiculous.
The mother then gave birth in a refugee camp in Syria and tried to go back to the U.K. with her son, who, like her was a British citizen. Instead of being compassionate and trying to get them out, the British Government revoked the mother's citizenship and refused to let her return home. And, as far as I can see, it made no attempt to bring the baby back to the U.K., as the mother's family wished, and where his relatives would have cared for him.
ETA: Being compassionate does not mean not prosecuting someone for her crimes. She should be prosecuted if she ever steps foot on British soil.
- Messages
- 10,671
- Ratings
Wasn't that part of why they wanted to revoke the citizenship, because prosecution would have been difficult since she hadn't committed acts of terror herself?
That the child died is tragic.
I can still see both sides, though. Yes, the baby would have had better chances of survival if the baby had been in Britain. On the other hand, it's not first child she has lost and if memory serves, she didn't decide to return to Britain until her husband was killed, so she got pregnant before that. Which means that she was willing to be pregnant in less than ideal conditions again. I'm not saying the baby's death is only her fault. I'm just saying that I don't think it's fair to blame the baby's death entirely on the UK either. (And since she has lost children before, it is possible that there was some kind of genetic defect, too).
That said, I do believe that Britain should have worked with Begum and Begum's parents to find the best solution to give the baby the best chances of survival. The baby truly was innocent and the baby also wasn't responsible for his parents' actions. Any of them. Why didn't they offer Begum's parents to go get the child and bring him to the UK while they figure out how to proceed?
And I think it's completely wrong that they stripped her of her citizenship even though she didn't have Bangladesh citizenship. There should be consequences for that.
That the child died is tragic.
I can still see both sides, though. Yes, the baby would have had better chances of survival if the baby had been in Britain. On the other hand, it's not first child she has lost and if memory serves, she didn't decide to return to Britain until her husband was killed, so she got pregnant before that. Which means that she was willing to be pregnant in less than ideal conditions again. I'm not saying the baby's death is only her fault. I'm just saying that I don't think it's fair to blame the baby's death entirely on the UK either. (And since she has lost children before, it is possible that there was some kind of genetic defect, too).
That said, I do believe that Britain should have worked with Begum and Begum's parents to find the best solution to give the baby the best chances of survival. The baby truly was innocent and the baby also wasn't responsible for his parents' actions. Any of them. Why didn't they offer Begum's parents to go get the child and bring him to the UK while they figure out how to proceed?
And I think it's completely wrong that they stripped her of her citizenship even though she didn't have Bangladesh citizenship. There should be consequences for that.
Shamima Begum's husband was not killed - he surrendered and is very much alive and had wanted to return to the Netherlands along with his wife and then alive baby:
Shamim Begum's husband wanted to take wife and child back to the Netherlands
He was not stripped of his citizenship and I assume the child also had Dutch citizenship as well as family in the Netherlands.
What so many seem to be forgetting is that the UK had no consulate in Syria - it would have required much negotiation to get her and her child out and there is no saying the Syrians would have allowed it. However if the UK government had tried to open communication that would have opened a huge can of worms with other families who had family members going to join IS wanting their family member returned as well. Part of the issue lies in the utter lack of contrition Shamim Begum has shown - she definitely has a huge sense of entitlement going on. If she truly cared about her child she would have been apologising and showing remorse from the first interview onwards. She really believed she could return to the UK and live in peace with her child with no ramification for her actions.
Stripping someone of their citizenship is not done on a whim - the UK Home Secretary would not have done it unless he was sure of his actions. Interestingly 2 IS brides have been stripped of their citizenship:
IS brides: Two more mothers 'stripped of UK citizenship'
People need to be aware that there are consequences attached to their actions.
Shamim Begum's husband wanted to take wife and child back to the Netherlands
He was not stripped of his citizenship and I assume the child also had Dutch citizenship as well as family in the Netherlands.
What so many seem to be forgetting is that the UK had no consulate in Syria - it would have required much negotiation to get her and her child out and there is no saying the Syrians would have allowed it. However if the UK government had tried to open communication that would have opened a huge can of worms with other families who had family members going to join IS wanting their family member returned as well. Part of the issue lies in the utter lack of contrition Shamim Begum has shown - she definitely has a huge sense of entitlement going on. If she truly cared about her child she would have been apologising and showing remorse from the first interview onwards. She really believed she could return to the UK and live in peace with her child with no ramification for her actions.
Stripping someone of their citizenship is not done on a whim - the UK Home Secretary would not have done it unless he was sure of his actions. Interestingly 2 IS brides have been stripped of their citizenship:
IS brides: Two more mothers 'stripped of UK citizenship'
People need to be aware that there are consequences attached to their actions.
Yes the baby was innocent - but even if the UK - or Dutch (as the child was half Dutch) - had started to look into trying to get the mother and child out there is no way it would have been done in time to save the life of this child - who died soon after he was born. There is no official UK - or I assume Dutch - representation in Syria and the situation was not as simple as asking Syria to let her and her child leave. If Shamima had really wanted to save her child she would have sought out a representative of a UK/US paper much earlier on in her pregnancy to get her story out and been a hell of a lot more contrite. She only went to the camp when her husband surrendered and it was clear IS was on the run. So yes the baby was innocent but his mother did too little too late to help him get a life beyond the situation she had brought on herself.
How exactly do you think Britain should have worked withBegum and Begum’s parents to find the best solution to give the baby the best chances for survival? Please be more specific. According to the law, Britain could not remove the child unless there would be child care proceedings and the Local Authority that initiantes it needs to have enough evidence to meet the threshold, or unless the birth mother decides to place the child voluntarily into care (under voluntary accommodation). Begum gave plenty of interviews so if she really thought about the best interest of the child and wanted the child to get to Britain, she had plenty of opportunities to do so. Unfortunately nothing indicated that she intended to be separated from the child. And I can imagine the outbreak of public outrage if the Local authority initiated child care proceedings without having any evidence that the mother is causing her child significant harm. The law is based on the assumption that the best place for the child us in the child’s family.
- Messages
- 10,671
- Ratings
She certainly managed to express her wish to return to the UK without a UK representitive in the area.
It's against international law to make someone stateless. I'm not sure that being sure of his actions works in his favor in that case. Just saying.
I was thinking simply. Have the parents suggest to their daughter that she'd hand the baby over to them until her situation was resolved. Of course, that would probably only have worked while the baby still had citizenship.
It's against international law to make someone stateless. I'm not sure that being sure of his actions works in his favor in that case. Just saying.
I was thinking simply. Have the parents suggest to their daughter that she'd hand the baby over to them until her situation was resolved. Of course, that would probably only have worked while the baby still had citizenship.
She expressed the wish to return to the UK with the child. She didn’t express that she wants the child to return ASAP, even if it would mean the child would return without her. She had all those interviews, she had plenty of opportunities to request that and she didn’t. Personally, I think she was a bit selfish and thought more about her needs than the needs of her child; it seemed to me that she wanted to use the child as her ticket to the UK, rather than thinking how to get the child from those awful life conditions ASAP.
I agree she could have requested her parents to bring up her child. But as a person with parenal responsibility, it is her decision. This needs to come from her, not other people making her do it. She didn’t even express that sending the child to the UK without her would be one of the options she would like to pursue. So I really don’t know why Britain would be criticised. If any official suggested that to her, it would be a huge outcry that she is being punished for her involvement with terrorists by having her child removed. As I said, the authority can’t remove her child without a court order or without her requesting to have the child voluntarily accommodated. The court won’t grant the order until there is enough evidence, and she didn’t didn’t request the child to be taken into the care. So all that is left is a private arrangement between her and her parents, and it is pretty clear that she didn’t make any arrangement with her parents.
So what exactly do you think Britain should have done? Despite the popular belief, social workers are not just going around removing children whenever they think someone doesn’t deserve to keep the child. There is a process involved. Even though the child was British citizen, the child was in care of his/her mother and no official had right to remove him/her without a court order or without the child’s mother requesting it.
I agree she could have requested her parents to bring up her child. But as a person with parenal responsibility, it is her decision. This needs to come from her, not other people making her do it. She didn’t even express that sending the child to the UK without her would be one of the options she would like to pursue. So I really don’t know why Britain would be criticised. If any official suggested that to her, it would be a huge outcry that she is being punished for her involvement with terrorists by having her child removed. As I said, the authority can’t remove her child without a court order or without her requesting to have the child voluntarily accommodated. The court won’t grant the order until there is enough evidence, and she didn’t didn’t request the child to be taken into the care. So all that is left is a private arrangement between her and her parents, and it is pretty clear that she didn’t make any arrangement with her parents.
So what exactly do you think Britain should have done? Despite the popular belief, social workers are not just going around removing children whenever they think someone doesn’t deserve to keep the child. There is a process involved. Even though the child was British citizen, the child was in care of his/her mother and no official had right to remove him/her without a court order or without the child’s mother requesting it.
Via an interview with the press - as I said the UK have no consulate or representation in Syria - they couldn't just waltz into a foreign country where they have no representation and take the child!! Originally the UK government stated that if she made her way to a country where there was a UK consulate then they would consider her request. That was until she was stripped of her UK citizenship.
And the decision was made with legal advise so I suspect that regardless of what the Bangladeshi authorities said that she did have ancestral citizenship to that country so not left stateless. Just saying!!
It was rather simplistic thinking but the child did have UK - and possibly Dutch (though everyone likes to ignore that) citizenship up until he unfortunately died. But as @hanca has stated she really had no though for anyone but herself. so was never going to hand over her child - which was basically her bargaining chip.
And the decision was made with legal advise so I suspect that regardless of what the Bangladeshi authorities said that she did have ancestral citizenship to that country so not left stateless. Just saying!!
It was rather simplistic thinking but the child did have UK - and possibly Dutch (though everyone likes to ignore that) citizenship up until he unfortunately died. But as @hanca has stated she really had no though for anyone but herself. so was never going to hand over her child - which was basically her bargaining chip.
I don't think anyone wanted the child to die but I agree it was foreseeable as a potential outcome.
However:
- the child's citizenship was not stripped but the mother as far as I know did not request at any time that her child be granted return to the country while she appealed the decision to revoke her citizenship (which by the way I think she'll win if she does appeal). In fact it was all very much about her child not being taken away.
- even if she had requested that I don't think the government could have got her child back before it died. It's actually only been about 3/4 weeks. Without consular representation and given the state of diplomatic relations between UK and Syria getting the child out of Syria with or without her would have been an extremely protracted process;
- I suspect she spoke to the press because she realised she wasn't going to get out of Syria as easily as she got in. She hoped it would mobilise either her family or the government but probably didn't think about how her words would play out in the press back home, nor appreciate how difficult it would be to get her out via diplomatic routes (which is what comes into force once the government are involved)
- @Lorac I admire your faith in the UK government. I'm all out of any. I don't think the decision to revoke citizenship was well considered. Ultimately it doesn't seem to me it matters what the UK government thinks about her Bangladeshi status if Bangladesh deny she is a citizen. Moreover the UK government has shown complete inconsistency in allowing an estimated 400-500 "fighters" return to the UK but stripping the citizenship of women who went out there. Some as children. I think the government's dealing of this situation is all about headlines and sound bites and distraction from the rest of the political landscape.
If we're accepting back men who went to fight and subjecting them to UK justice (or given how quiet it's all been, not doing so) then there's really no good justification for treating these women differently.
I say all of this as someone not enamoured of the idea of anyone who went to join IS returning (whatever role they played) but who at the same time reluctantly acknowledges that those people aren't some other country's problem.
However:
- the child's citizenship was not stripped but the mother as far as I know did not request at any time that her child be granted return to the country while she appealed the decision to revoke her citizenship (which by the way I think she'll win if she does appeal). In fact it was all very much about her child not being taken away.
- even if she had requested that I don't think the government could have got her child back before it died. It's actually only been about 3/4 weeks. Without consular representation and given the state of diplomatic relations between UK and Syria getting the child out of Syria with or without her would have been an extremely protracted process;
- I suspect she spoke to the press because she realised she wasn't going to get out of Syria as easily as she got in. She hoped it would mobilise either her family or the government but probably didn't think about how her words would play out in the press back home, nor appreciate how difficult it would be to get her out via diplomatic routes (which is what comes into force once the government are involved)
- @Lorac I admire your faith in the UK government. I'm all out of any. I don't think the decision to revoke citizenship was well considered. Ultimately it doesn't seem to me it matters what the UK government thinks about her Bangladeshi status if Bangladesh deny she is a citizen. Moreover the UK government has shown complete inconsistency in allowing an estimated 400-500 "fighters" return to the UK but stripping the citizenship of women who went out there. Some as children. I think the government's dealing of this situation is all about headlines and sound bites and distraction from the rest of the political landscape.
If we're accepting back men who went to fight and subjecting them to UK justice (or given how quiet it's all been, not doing so) then there's really no good justification for treating these women differently.
I say all of this as someone not enamoured of the idea of anyone who went to join IS returning (whatever role they played) but who at the same time reluctantly acknowledges that those people aren't some other country's problem.
Last edited:
@mella, I hadn't heard the fighters had been accepted back. The fear in allowing any of these people back is that they could radicalize others. Even if they went straight to prison they could infect others in the prison. I don't think anyone knows the perfect answer for the UK or anywhere.
I completely agree with you. The UK government was under intense pressure from the public and their decision seems to be very reactive and pandering to me. Plus there is always an undercurrent of punishing women harder than men for the same behavior in many country's justice system and you can see it here.
We in the US have our fighters and their wives who want to come back and I agree that ours are our problem (say ours are our 5x fast
) and not another countries. I hope we do the right thing, but I don't have much faith that we will given the current state of affairs here. I don't think stripping of citizenship is the right thing. Punishment for acts committed is.
As for radicalizing others, that can happen without these particular people coming back to the country. If we treated our young people better and gave them more opportunities, it would be a lot harder to radicalize them.
We in the US have our fighters and their wives who want to come back and I agree that ours are our problem (say ours are our 5x fast
) and not another countries. I hope we do the right thing, but I don't have much faith that we will given the current state of affairs here. I don't think stripping of citizenship is the right thing. Punishment for acts committed is. As for radicalizing others, that can happen without these particular people coming back to the country. If we treated our young people better and gave them more opportunities, it would be a lot harder to radicalize them.