Shamima Begum, a British woman who joined ISIS as a teen, loses legal challenge over decision to revoke her UK citizenship

[Social Media]

LondonCNN — 

Shamima Begum, who left the United Kingdom to join ISIS at the age of 15, has lost her appeal against the decision to revoke her British citizenship.

Judge Robert Jay gave the decision on Wednesday following a five-day hearing in November. The ruling does not determine if Begum can return to the UK, but whether the removal of her citizenship was lawful.

Begum, now aged 23, flew to Syria in 2015 with two school friends as a teenager join the ISIS terror group. In February 2019, she re-emerged and made international headlines as an “ISIS bride” after pleading with the UK government to return to her home country to give birth to her son.

[Social Media]

 

[petermik]

1. Don't let her in the country again...she made her bed let her rot in it...????

[billd766]

I wonder who paid for and will continue to pay her legal fees.

 

Does she not understand that a large majority of the UK population don't really like her, or want her back in the UK?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum

 

Ten days after arriving in Syria, Begum married Dutch-born Yago Riedijk, a convert to Islam who had arrived in Syria in October 2014. This marriage may not be recognised under Dutch law since she was underage at that time.

 

She gave birth to three children, all of whom died young; her youngest child was born in a refugee camp in February 2019 and, by March 2019, had died of a lung infection.

 

 

[Bluespunk]

Hmm…while I don’t have any sympathy for the life choices she made as a school age child (15 years old is school age) and to be honest, in the past, really didn’t care if she was allowed to return to the U.K. or not, I no longer feel that way.
 

She is a British born citizen and no matter how repellent the views she holds or held in the past I don’t believe it is correct for the British govt to revoke her citizenship.

 

Not because I feel any sympathy for her but because of the precedent it sets. 
 

And to be clear I’m not denying the legality of what was done, I just don’t feel at ease with governments doing so. 
 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Bluespunk

[Tug]

I normally don’t comment about other countries in this particular situation she was still a kid when she made this bad decision to me I feel that should be considered as well as her present mental condition and views also does she have any were to go if allowed back in?stupid girl for sure

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

I wonder who paid for and will continue to pay her legal fees.

 

Does she not understand that a large majority of the UK population don't really like her, or want her back in the UK?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum

 

Ten days after arriving in Syria, Begum married Dutch-born Yago Riedijk, a convert to Islam who had arrived in Syria in October 2014. This marriage may not be recognised under Dutch law since she was underage at that time.

 

She gave birth to three children, all of whom died young; her youngest child was born in a refugee camp in February 2019 and, by March 2019, had died of a lung infection.

 

 

I don't know what a large majority wants, but it is a legal issue, not one where the will of a perceived majority should have any bearing on.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

I don't know what a large majority wants, but it is a legal issue, not one where the will of a perceived majority should have any bearing on.

and so far the legal rulings have been on the side of "right". No way she should be allowed back into the UK.

[webfact]

Shamima Begum bid to regain UK citizenship rejected

By Dominic Casciani and Sean Seddon
BBC News

 

Ms Begum was 15 when she joined the self-styled Islamic State group in 2015

 

Shamima Begum has lost her challenge over the decision to deprive her of British citizenship despite a "credible" case she was trafficked.

 

Mr Justice Jay told the semi-secret court dealing with her case that her appeal had been fully dismissed.

 

The ruling means the 23-year-old remains barred from returning to the UK and stuck in a camp in northern Syria.

 

Her legal team said the case was "nowhere near over" and the decision will be challenged.

 

Full story: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64731007

 

-- © Copyright BBC 2023-02-23

[billd766]

12 hours ago, stevenl said:

I don't know what a large majority wants, but it is a legal issue, not one where the will of a perceived majority should have any bearing on.

I know that it is a legal matter BUT it has already been decided that she has lost her UK citizenship.

 

This is yet another appeal against that decision but somebody is paying her lawyers and barristers who do not come cheap at that level.

 

As a UK taxpayer from 1959 until the day I die, I would not want ANY taxpayers money spent on her.

 

She chose her life, it was not forced on her.

 

She made her bed, now she must lie in it.

 

I have zero sympathy for her at all.

[Denim]

A lot of us did stupid things when we were teenagers but what she did goes way beyond stupid.

 

Had ISIS not come undone and been kicked out she would likely still be there perfectly content.

 

She would be better off trying to get Bangladesh to accept her. She has not renounced Islam so presumably she would be happier there.

[James105]

7 minutes ago, billd766 said:

I know that it is a legal matter BUT it has already been decided that she has lost her UK citizenship.

 

This is yet another appeal against that decision but somebody is paying her lawyers and barristers who do not come cheap at that level.

 

As a UK taxpayer from 1959 until the day I die, I would not want ANY taxpayers money spent on her.

 

She chose her life, it was not forced on her.

 

She made her bed, now she must lie in it.

 

I have zero sympathy for her at all.

I'm struggling to understand - since she is no longer a UK citizen - how it is she is still qualifying for UK legal aid.   We would not do this for other citizens of ISIS or Bangladesh or any other part of the world, so I am baffled after the first appeal why this responsibility still falls on the UK taxpayer.    

[billd766]

13 minutes ago, James105 said:

I'm struggling to understand - since she is no longer a UK citizen - how it is she is still qualifying for UK legal aid.   We would not do this for other citizens of ISIS or Bangladesh or any other part of the world, so I am baffled after the first appeal why this responsibility still falls on the UK taxpayer.    

I have that problem as well.

 

She has no money, but the appeal is going through the UK courts, so somebody must be funding it.

 

IMHO it is the UK taxpayers who are funding it but I sincerely hope not.

 

The alternative I think, is that her legal team are working on a no win, no pay system. Even if they win who will pay her legal team?

[JonnyF]

Great news. Let her spend the rest of her days in a cave in Syria somewhere. The UK could do without such revolting characters sullying it's shores.

 

Good riddance.

[ozimoron]

40 minutes ago, James105 said:

I'm struggling to understand - since she is no longer a UK citizen - how it is she is still qualifying for UK legal aid.   We would not do this for other citizens of ISIS or Bangladesh or any other part of the world, so I am baffled after the first appeal why this responsibility still falls on the UK taxpayer.    

Her case is not finalised until appeals are exhausted. As such she remains entitled to a public defender.

 

Personally, I think that the principle of  age accountability as a minor should be upheld. If she were an adult then I'd have no sympathy for her. It's not a crime to be an idiot.

[stevenl]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and so far the legal rulings have been on the side of "right". No way she should be allowed back into the UK.

Nothing to do with my post.

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, James105 said:

I'm struggling to understand - since she is no longer a UK citizen - how it is she is still qualifying for UK legal aid.   We would not do this for other citizens of ISIS or Bangladesh or any other part of the world, so I am baffled after the first appeal why this responsibility still falls on the UK taxpayer.    

If citizenship is revoked I would expect the person having the right to appeal by UK legal aid.

[James105]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Her case is not finalised until appeals are exhausted. As such she remains entitled to a public defender.

 

Personally, I think that the principle of  age accountability as a minor should be upheld. If she were an adult then I'd have no sympathy for her. It's not a crime to be an idiot.

The age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old in the UK.   Maybe if she had left as a 9 year old you would have a point.  This also provides a deterrent for any other would be terrorists who wish to partake in terrorist atrocities abroad, especially so if they have any kind of dual nationality or a pathway to alternate nationality on their parents side.    This in turn should encourage better parenting from 1st generation migrants into the UK by encouraging them to teach their kids that if they join a terrorist death cult there is a good chance they will lose their right to be in the UK should they be captured whilst part of this death cult.

[James105]

51 minutes ago, stevenl said:

If citizenship is revoked I would expect the person having the right to appeal by UK legal aid.

She has had an appeal already.   The next step should be GoFundMe if she or her family cannot afford further appeals.   There have been plenty of high profile rich woke idiots such as Gary Linekar speaking out (without of course being privy to the facts such as MI5 and the home office who say she is a security risk based on these facts) who can contribute to this.   

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, James105 said:

since she is no longer a UK citizen - how it is she is still qualifying for UK legal aid.

Who said that she was on Legal Aid?  The lawyers could be acting pro bono.

 

Edit:  Apparently she is (was) getting Legal Aid, granted by the Ministry of Justice.

Edited February 23, 2023 by Liverpool Lou

[James105]

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Who said that she was on Legal Aid?  The lawyers could be acting pro bono.

The internet says she is on legal aid.   The lawyers care as much about her as they do the poor folks who would have to live next to her if she were to be allowed to return.  

 

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/shamima-begum-case-pushes-legal-aid-into-national-spotlight/5070002.article

[Dogsredrocket]

The western world doesn't need terrorists.

 

I'm sure ISIS will provide for her and her son...

[Liverpool Lou]

5 minutes ago, James105 said:

13 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Who said that she was on Legal Aid?  The lawyers could be acting pro bono.

The internet says she is on legal aid. 

That's why I edited my comment.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

If citizenship is revoked I would expect the person having the right to appeal by UK legal aid.

I on the other hand would not expect a single penny to be spent on her.

 

She turned her back on her country BUT still expects the country to support and carry her at the UK taxpayers expense.