To my best of my knowledge the law is that if they're not registered by their 21st birthday then they lose their citizenship. Registration would prevent the future loss of citizenship. As this individual is under 21 then that is moot.
At least that is the legal advice the government seems to be operating under.
And just to make one thing clear; I regret there is any limit at all when it comes to stripping citizenship of these people. Let them become stateless now that their beloved Islamic State is disappearing. Every single one of them.
Congratulations America
That is irrelevant. You claimed she fought for ISIS. That claim was questioned. You implied she must have fought because she certainly wasn't there just to bake cookies. That claim was questioned, because there is no evidence to suggest she actively participated in acts of terror or other violent atrocities (this may change) which is crucial unless you're using a fuzzy non-literal quasiphilosophical definition of the word "fought". Hazir then essentially equated her actions with terrorism, suggesting there's no legitimate distinction, and you endorsed that view. That position is questionable, and the law distinguishes between joining & supporting a terrorist group and actually committing violent acts of terror. This is one reason why we don't just jail all members of violent far-right/neo-Nazi groups.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Hazir has already explained this to you but you seem to be unwilling or unable to understand. She voluntarily went to join a terrorist group in a warzone that was beheading people.
We will likely never know what if any atrocities she personally commited there and it doesn't matter. Its not like we have CCTV surveillance across the whole of IS territory to see what vile deeds she commited. The law makes her very presence there a crime.
She made her own choice. I have more sympathy for her victims than her.
Hazir's emotionally loaded views are understandable but not informative. A 15-y-o grooming victim going to a war zone to marry a terrorist and have children with a terrorist may constitute a crime, but it does not necessarily constitute the crime of engaging in terrorism. It absolutely matters whether or not she committed acts of violent terror or other atrocities herself; if you disagree, then you're essentially saying the punishment for eg. murder should be the same as the punishment for supporting a murderer, which in this case risks letting murderers off with a slap on the wrist. You don't need CCTVs to prosecute crimes against humanity, although they would help; we've been prosecuting war criminals for a very long time, based on witness testimonies.
If you want to feel sympathy for her victims, you may want to first identify her victims. Otherwise you're just engaging in a creative exercise.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Is there an argument to say that it's not feasible for her to show any remorse else risk being stoned to death herself?
Not currently, no. At present there is no real risk of such reprisals for rejecting terrorists, and indeed a higher likelihood of being harmed for not rejecting them. It may be a reasonable explanation for why some who joined ISIS but then changed their minds nevertheless stayed with the group—esp. those who became parents while there.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Considering she's facing potential execution if she ends up in the hands of the Iraqis and potential lesser punishments by the Kurds [whose custody I believe she is in] or Syrians then no absolutely not.
Her justification of the Manchester Arena bombing was unsolicited and was not to avoid reprisals.
ARE you worried you’re not being goaded enough by the media over ISIS bride Shamima Begum? Read our checklist and see if you could be angrier.
Are you really angry right now?
If the answer is ‘yes’, fine. If not, immediately read plenty of outraged articles. Take a handful of Pro Plus washed down with Monster energy drink to increase your tension levels.
Do you keep thinking about things that aren’t the ISIS bride?
The part of your brain that deals with ‘perspective’ could be fooling you into thinking there are bigger long-term issues facing the UK, like our precarious NHS. Get back to worrying about that evil ISIS bride.
Do you feel the media coverage is a tad excessive?
A ridiculous thought, but if you’re finding it hard to be obsessed with a very minor cog in the ISIS machine, think of other things that anger you, like pigeons shitting on your car. Then imagine they’re ISIS pigeons.
Do you feel any sympathy?
If you’re thinking ‘teenagers do some stupid things, I know I did’, stop immediately. You should be on the Mailwebsite posting gibberish like “No SECUND CHANCE!!! Hang the Islamatic tractors IN HELL!!!’.
What are you doing this weekend?
Christ, how can you even be thinking about your social life when the ISIS bride is on the loose in wherever? However if you’re planning to share angry, trite opinions like “if you’ve made your bed, bloody lie in it” that’s OK.
Is a vein in your neck throbbing and you’re having palpitations?
You are reaching the right level of anger. Watch ‘ISIS bride’ news reports for the rest of the day, even if your boss is unsure whether to tell you to do some fucking work or call 999
I was talking more about being stoned to death (or whatever the murder-method-of-the-day is) by ISIS themselves. If she starts attacking them and showing too much remorse in front of the entire world, surely her life, and the life of her baby, are at serious risk?
We have absolutely no idea who's behind the camera, and who's she's going home to.
Nice semantic trick you play there by implying she's more of a victim than a perpetrator. She is not the innocent victim of human trafficking. Her being part of the colonization by a murderous group of terrorists was exactly what she got on a plane for in Gatwick for. She knowingly and willingly lived on the fruits of theft and extortion. Even if that was all she did she is complicit. Whatever other crimes she has committed only comes on top. If Is would have been a recognized state what she did by going there would have been enough to warrant prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Congratulations America
Yeah really? 4 years of actively supporting IS just a teenager's folly? The woman specifically said that she has no regrets about being on the side of people who threw cut off human heads in the thrash. Enjoy your game of playing to be morally superior. What you are really doing is excusing behavior that actually destroyed the lives thousands upon thousands of people.
Congratulations America
Not really. Even if they couldn't be nailed with one charge they can almost always be nailed with others, and things like conspiracy/accessory provide some fairly effective reach for doing so. The only reason we don't do that is because it's expensive, unnecessary, and potentially counter-productive. Prosecuting and jailing high-profile examples provides most of the same functionality as going after everyone, when crime has become a social activity, while minimizing the risks created by failed prosecutions. Social participation in crime is one of the few areas where Lewk's not completely wrong wrt deterrence via the justice system.
Without taking a side in this particular discussion (I have no dog in this fight and frankly just do not care in the slightest) on what should be done with/to her, what is lacking here wrt your analogy are the other cases where the government is already making an example of similar people.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 02-22-2019 at 09:36 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The idea that someone going to join a death cult, be content with beheading innocent people, think that the Manchester Arena Bombing which killed lots of people including schoolgirls was justified . . . is somehow equivalent to the folly of a teenager playing truant or maybe getting a tattoo?
Pull the other one.
And if you think not providing crocodile tears and saying to her "you made your bed, now lie in it" is a statement on how someone's spending their weekend . . . you'd have to question why any of us post here to be honest.
Just a question to you guys: Do you believe in Human Rights?
Then maybe don't be so quick to "strip someone of their citizenship".
Unless of course you're a fair-weather believer who only wants those things when convenient.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I believe in Human Rights and Responsibilities.
She has no rights here. She's a dual national, so she has not been rendered stateless, we're under no legal or ethical obligation to keep her citizenship and there's no international human rights agreement that says otherwise. I don't believe in bullshit of making up any old crap you're OK with and saying that it is a human right.
There's no human right that says you can go support those who decapitate others, support bombing Manchester and then have a right to come to this country from Syria.
Dude. Answer the question and don't try to weasel out with a counterquestion. Again, human rights: For or against? And if for, under all circumstances or only when convenient?
I won't accept any answer which ends with a question mark. Those questions are easy enough to answer.
And any attempt at qualifications will show what side you're actually on - and you've already incurred your first strike.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?