Forum Topic

Trump wants UK to take back groomed Shamima

"Britain MUST take back Shamima Begum and other Isis members from Syrian prisons, Trump's terror chief says""The UK should take back British members of Islamic State who are languishing in Syrian prison camps, Donald Trump's incoming terror chief has said. Sebastian Gorka, a British-American, called on Sir Keir Starmer to bring the citizens home as part of his 'commitment' to the international fight against the jihadist group. His comments come after ISIS bride Shamima Begum last year lost her final appeal against the government's decision to rescind her British citizenship.It is thought she would be one of the members of the terror group who would be repatriated under his plans. There are currently around 20 British women, 40 children and 10 men detained in prison camps in northeastern Syria, according to charities working in the region.Gorka, who has been appointed a deputy assistant to the president-elect, told The Times countries needed to act in a way that reflects their desire to be a US ally. And when asked whether Britain should be forced to take the ISIS prisoners back, he said: 'Any nation which wishes to be seen to be a serious ally and friend of the most powerful nation in the world should act in a fashion that reflects that serious commitment.'That is doubly so for the UK which has a very special place in President Trump's heart and we would all wish to see the "special relationship" fully re-established.'""Since ISIS was defeated in 2019, the US has been piling on the pressure for its partners to repatriate their citizens many of whom have been detained for years.The American Justice Department has argued it is their 'moral responsibility' to solve to bring the prisoners home and try them there. Britain has so far taken a hard line on the matter and has refused most repatriation requests- with the most notorious being the Begum case."https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14265157/Shamima-Begum-Isis-members-Syrian-Trump.html

David Ainsworth ● 120d63 Comments

'Why exactly do you think that criticising the Israeli Govt is anti-semitic?  If you can't criticise something then surely that is a denial of freedom'.Of course you can criticise the Israeli government.Just as one can the Islamic states that surround and threaten to annihilate it.Read the Palestinian Hamas Charter.It just seems that the balance of criticism tilts inordinately in one direction - towards Israel.I notice the pro-Palestinian supporters are back from their Christmas holidays and are marching in London in a joint rally to also show solidarity with oppressed women.Ironic what ?If any religion or religious based culture oppressed women, is it not Islam and Islamism ? Yesterday I watched a DVD of 'Schindler's List which is a dramatized depiction of the start of the Holocaust to annihilate the Jews by Germans and Poles.Suggest you do so to.It will clearly explain why the UN founded the state of Israel in 1947 as a state of sanctuary for Jews.'As of now, the State of Israel is recognized as a sovereign state by 164 of the 192 member states of the United Nations. The State of Israel was formally established by the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948, and was admitted to the United Nations (UN) as a full member state on 11 May 1949. It also maintains bilateral ties with all of the UNSC Permanent Five. 28 member states have either never recognized Israel or have withdrawn their recognition; others have severed diplomatic relations without explicitly withdrawing their recognition. Additionally, many non-recognizing countries have challenged Israel's existence—predominantly those in the Muslim world.'It also shows why Israel will always rightly be on its guard and take whatever steps it thinks necessary to protect its existence.Apart from the fact that Israel has managed to eliminate most of the fascist Palestinian leaders that led (often from Doha or Dubai) attacks against it, there is further good news in that Trump will soon be President of the US.Though he will criticise and restrain some actions the more extreme Israelis might want to take in the conflict, he sure as hell won't let the Arabs get away with murder.

John Hawkes ● 114d

Surprisingly (to me) Jacob Rees-Mogg has pointed out the dangers of this decision. "Jacob Rees-Mogg says decision to strip Shamima Begum of UK citizenship is ‘racist’ and ‘wrong’""Rees-Mogg, a former cabinet member and standard bearer of the Tory right wing, said the decision by former home secretary Sajid Javid to strip her of her citizenship was “wrong and ought never to have been made”.“This is not because Begum was groomed, trafficked and raped. These are serious considerations, and in all normal circumstances, a 15-year-old treated in such a barbarous way would not be held culpable for her actions,” he wrote in the Spectator magazine [24 February 2024].He said on both equality grounds and the fact she had been deprived of the right to a fair trial she should not have been stripped of UK citizenship.""Begum, then aged 19, was discovered by a British journalist in a detention camp in northern Syria in 2019. Then pregnant with her third child by a Dutch-born jihadist, she said she wanted to return to Britain to have her baby – the first two had died as infants.The British government refused and indicated it would strip her of citizenship, however. Javid said this was based on an intelligence services assessment that she posed a risk to the UK. He said the fact that her parents were from Bangladesh meant she could become a citizen of there instead, although the Bangladeshi government subsequently warned that she would not be admitted there.Begum, whose third baby also died in infancy, has denounced Islamic State, also known as Isis, but has lost a series of legal battles to return to the UK. In 2023, she lost an appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission against the decision to strip her of UK citizenship. Last week, the court of appeal backed the legality of commission’s ruling.Rees-Mogg said the fact that her parents were Bangladeshi, giving her potential citizenship there, had created grounds for stripping her UK rights that would not be available to wield against other UK citizens. He said this created “two classes of Britons” – those with the right of citizenship in another country who could as a result have their Britishness stripped away, and those who didn’t.“This is a fundamentally racist policy as it denies the absolute Britishness of all those who are either recent immigrants themselves or their children,” said the MP.He also said Begum deserved the right to a fair trial in Britain, and should not have that right taken away by a government administrative decision."https://www.irishtimes.com/world/uk/2024/02/26/jacob-rees-mogg-says-decision-to-strip-shamima-begum-of-uk-citizenship-is-racist-and-wrong/Elaborated by this:-"The implications of this draconian deprivation power are stark. For example, Jewish people are entitled to Israeli citizenship under the country’s Law of Return, and those with at least one grandparent born in Ireland can become Irish citizens. A home secretary could thereby deprive a person of their British citizenship if they were satisfied that they would still be entitled to become a citizen of Israel or Ireland or somewhere else. As the United Kingdom is a multicultural nation with many first- and second-generation immigrants, the implications of such a power are chilling. And this executive power is even more worrying when it can render somebody stateless. This is not just a concern of liberal pundits. As the former Supreme Court judge Jonathan Sumption, perhaps Britain’s least woke legal commentator, explains:“When the decision was made, in 2019, Ms Begum was 19. She was a citizen of Bangladesh, but only in the most technical sense. She had provisional citizenship until she was 21, when it would lapse unless she took it up. This was because her parents were born there. But she has never been to Bangladesh. She has no links with the country. And Bangladesh has disowned her. Her Bangladeshi citizenship always was a legal fiction. Today, it is not even that. She is 23. As a result of the home secretary’s decision, she is stuck in a camp in Syria, with no citizenship anywhere and no prospect of one. Children who make a terrible mistake are surely redeemable. But statelessness is for ever.”"https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/65095/the-statelessness-of-shamima-begum

David Ainsworth ● 117d

I don't know where that stuff at the beginning of my post came from I'll repost, leaving it out.Sue's defence against hypocrisy is based on a series of wild, speculative assumptions that she has absolutely no evidence for.For the true picture, see the report of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission of 22 February 2023 (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Shamima-Begum-OPEN-Judgment.pdf). It’s 76 pages long and couched in cautious legalise, but the conclusions are clear. The crucial points are these:- in para 219. "In the Commission's opinion, there is a credible suspicion that Ms Begum was recruited, transferred and then harboured for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Given that she was a child at the time .... ."- in para 220 ".... It is accepted that Ms Begum was radicalised (although its extent is not accepted), and as a matter of basic common sense that must have happened, at least in part, through internet research and grooming whils t in the United Kingdom. Her press interviews are entirely consistent with that interpretation. There must at the very least be a credible suspicion that this is what took place."- in para 221. "The idea that Ms Begum could have conceived and organised all of this herself is not plausible. True, the theft of her sister's passport was not ISIL inspired, but getting to the Syrian border would not have been straightforward even for someone ten years older. Whether those in Syria acted as mere facilitators does not really matter for the purposes of the ECAT definition because there must be a credible suspicion that she was in touch with these people before she left the United Kingdom and that they provided encouragement."Finally, as Michael Brigo has pointed out, even Sue's idol Farage agrees that she should be allowed to return. This is surely right, as it is that she should receive trial in a genuine court, not the kangaroo variety favoured by bigots.

Richard Carter ● 119d

Upgrade to a smarter GmailSecure, fast and organised emailOpenSearch(no subject)Richard Carterto me2 minutes agoDetailsSue's defence against hypocrisy is based on a series of wild, speculative assumptions that she has absolutely no evidence for.For the true picture, see the report of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission of 22 February 2023 (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Shamima-Begum-OPEN-Judgment.pdf). It’s 76 pages long and couched in cautious legalise, but the conclusions are clear. The crucial points are these:- in para 219. "In the Commission's opinion, there is a credible suspicion that Ms Begum was recruited, transferred and then harboured for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Given that she was a child at the time .... ."- in para 220 ".... It is accepted that Ms Begum was radicalised (although its extent is not accepted), and as a matter of basic common sense that must have happened, at least in part, through internet research and grooming whils t in the United Kingdom. Her press interviews are entirely consistent with that interpretation. There must at the very least be a credible suspicion that this is what took place."- in para 221. "The idea that Ms Begum could have conceived and organised all of this herself is not plausible. True, the theft of her sister's passport was not ISIL inspired, but getting to the Syrian border would not have been straightforward even for someone ten years older. Whether those in Syria acted as mere facilitators does not really matter for the purposes of the ECAT definition because there must be a credible suspicion that she was in touch with these people before she left the United Kingdom and that they provided encouragement."Finally, as Michael Brigo has pointed out, even Sue's idol Farage agrees that she should be allowed to return. Thus is surely right, as it is that she should receive trial in a genuine court, not the kangaroo variety favoured by bigots.

Richard Carter ● 119d