Shamima Begum - should she be allowed to return to the UK?
I'm certain that the majority would say she should have her British nationality revoked and never be allowed to darken our shores ever again.
There are two arguments that favour allowing her to return; the first is one from compassion. She was 15 and easily influenced. We all make mistakes in our youth and the rest of our lives should not be determined by youthful and, possibly, ideological mistakes. There's a certain validity to this, but I favour the much stronger 2nd argument.
This is that is that no-one with a British passport should be denied access to British justice; a cornerstone of the British legal system is the presumption of innocence. Begum has been tried, sentenced and executed by the press. If we allow the government to arbitrarily bar those holding British citizenship from the country without a trial, then we're heading down a very dangerous and slippery path to arbitrary justice determined by the whim of whoever happens to be in government.
The law is there to protect everyone, including you and I. Should Begum be stripped of her citizenship without a trial, a precedent would be set and, precedent forms much of our legal system. There would be nothing to stop, say Boris Johnson, declaring Keir Starmer a security risk while he's away on his next foreign holiday, and barring him from returning - or indeed the other way round if Starmer were PM.
Begum should be returned to the UK and any accusations should be laid before her in court. She should have the right of legal representation - just as any murderer, thief or rapist is. I'm not even sure what she could be accused of, if anything. Whatever she may have done was not committed on British soil, for a start, and it is all filtered through the media, which can be extremely biased.
Also, the UK's involvement in the Syrian conflict is legally questionable and served no purpose except to exacerbate the refugee crisis, which the UK refuses to bear the consequences of. Even then. the UK's target was Assad, not ISIS - the pretext being the use of chemical weapons. The only case the government has raised is the potential for her to be a security risk if she returns. Well, so are a lot of people - Boris Johnson's access to sensitive information was restricted under the May premiership due to him being considered a security risk. Does that mean he should be barred from the UK the next time he scoots off on a holiday?
The problem the government faces is proving she's a security risk - and they don't want to have to prove it, because it can only boil down to an opinion and not evidence or fact. You can't jail someone for what you believe they may do, only for what they have done. Actually, conspiracy to commit can be a just cause, but proof is again fraught with difficulties. It's easier to simply go down the illegal path of revoking her passport. That's a denial of justice and hence arbitrary. Trial in the court of public opinion is not true and impartial justice - it's rough and ready, pitchfork justice.
If there's one thing we know (although, ironically, we don't), it's that the public is invariably wrong about almost everything.
2 comments:
i have to agree that she should be allowed back , i do however think that tagging her and making her stay with her mother 24 hours a day may be a fitting punishment. Every day for the rest of her life having to listen to how she brought shame to the family
Not only was she 15 when she left the UK, she travelled on her sister's passport. Therefore Passport Control have some explaining to do.
Her local police force also said she had been groomed to act as she did therefore she is a victim of coercive control.
She does not hold Bangladeshi nationality. Never has. Never will.
And what exactly is UK government doing to identify and remove the hundreds of British men who went to join ISIS but have managed to return home and resume their lives? Nothing, because it is so much easier to demonise a young woman whose children are dead.
Post a Comment