Shamima Begum is a British-born woman who was one of three east London schoolgirls who left their homes and families to join the so-called Islamic State. The decision to deprive Begum of her British Citizenship is wrong: it denies her access to a fair trial and has reaffirmed old British colonial attitudes where we see the rest of the world as a ‘dumping ground’ for our criminals.
In February 2019, the British government issued an order revoking Begum’s British citizenship, stating that she could never return after her intention to return to the UK resulted in a public debate about the handling of returning jihadists.
“I believe that no matter what crimes someone has committed, no one deserves to be stripped of their human rights.”
Then, in July 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that Shamima Begum should be permitted to return to the UK in order to fairly contest this decision by instructing lawyers properly; a ruling which was appealed to the Supreme Court.
On 26 February 2021, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against her, thus reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal. They stated that the decision to deprive Begum of her British citizenship was “on grounds of conduciveness to the public good”, arguing that her return would “would present a risk to the national security of the United Kingdom.”
Despite Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak’s saying he is “glad the Supreme Court made the decision they have”, and Home Secretary Priti Patel saying that the decision has “reaffirmed the home secretary’s authority to make vital national security decisions”, I believe that no matter what crimes someone has committed, no one deserves to be stripped of their human rights.
“Do I think the response would have been the same if a white, 15-year-old girl who was groomed by Muslim men and ended up as a child bride in Syria? No.”
I do believe that Shamima Begum should be appropriately punished and held accountable for her actions, but I think that this process should take place on her home soil and within the English justice system.
The government should take more accountability for the grooming that takes place on British soil. Begum was a child when she left the UK and married convicted terrorist and extremist, Yago Riedijk. We don’t revoke the citizenship of other criminals regardless of the crime, so why was Begum’s ruling different?
Children are extremely susceptible to brainwashing and as a young girl, Begum too was brainwashed by ISIL terrorists and consequently joined them. Do I think the response would have been the same if a white, 15-year-old girl who was groomed by Muslim men and ended up as a child bride in Syria? No.
“However heinous her actions might’ve been, Britain still has both moral and legal obligations towards the young woman.”
The argument of whether Begum had a choice in what happened is a valid and important one. It doesn’t mean that her actions should be justified but it does mean that she should be looked after appropriately and fairly. Failing to defend someone who was groomed with devastating consequences screams hypocrisy for a country who prides themselves on supposedly treating their people in a just way.
However heinous her actions might’ve been, Britain still has both moral and legal obligations towards the young woman. The actions by the Supreme Court set out a disturbing precedent for other criminals, showing that, in these kinds of cases, moral and legal obligations are lost.
Others have been sharing their views on the debate which has quickly become one of human rights, with one individual going to Twitter to express their opinions.
My initial instinct is to leave Shamima Begum to rot in Syria; my head says #ShaminaBegum was groomed at 15, and she’s a British citizen. The UK needs to deal with its own mistakes; she should be in a UK prison for life on a treason charge!.
— MI6 ROGUE (@mi6rogue) February 28, 2021
To me, this seems like a reasonable and fair response to Begum’s actions.
Another stated that “taking away her right to a fair trial & her citizenship sets a frightening precedent for all of us”.
How very open-minded of you. Perhaps she should stand trial first, be given an opportunity to explain & undergo assessments etc? That's what wld happen in a civilised country. Taking away her right to a fair trial & her citizenship sets a frightening precedent for all of us.
— NotaBot (@shimla321) February 28, 2021
“The situation has been handled poorly and Begum’s human rights are being erased.”
The United Kingdom is a civilised country; why hasn’t Begum been given a chance to stand trial or an opportunity to explain and undergo assessments? This would certainly help conclude the argument of whether she was a victim of grooming or not.
By not allowing Shamima Begum to return home, the ‘multiculturalism’ ideology of the United Kingdom is in question. Would the situation be the same if Begum was a white, British citizen? I don’t know. But what I do know is that the situation has been handled poorly and Begum’s human rights are being erased. The Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Begum’s Court of Appeal was an unjust one.
To make it clear, I do not agree with what she did. It was wrong, regardless of whether she had much of a choice in her actions. She committed a serious crime, but in my opinion, her punishment is not proportional or just.
Holly Hostettler-Davies
Featured image courtesy of Ian Hutchinson via Unsplash. This image has in no way been altered. Image license is available here.
hollyhd
Hi! My name's Holly and I'm 17. I am a co-founder of Empoword Journalism and am so excited to create content alongside many young journalists.