Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Friday, 15 February 2019

Shamima Begum - No free pardon

There really is a load of gumph around about this woman. 'Family plea for Shamima to be allowed home' says the Times, echoed by others of the appeaser ilk. All that's missing so far is an appeal from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The fact is - a fact ignored by the more hysterical ladies of the press, including the Times - that no-one in government has determined that this woman Begum should be prevented from returning to the UK. She is a British citizen, and does not have dual nationality. She is quite free to return home and face the law - the consequences of having treacherously abused her nation, having aided and comforted the nation's enemies and having been complicit in the barbarous murder of other British citizens. 

Her family, pictured by the Times with a huge Teddy Bear in Islamic robes suitable for a four-year-old, are free to go to Syria and bring her back, or send her the money to book a flight home. The Times is probably even willing to arrange her repatriation itself, in exchange for an exclusive story.

If she turns up at the UK border, she cannot be denied entry. So this is not the issue. It's all about whether she should escape scot-free with no reckoning for her actions. She must not. She must answer to Justice, and if she continues to pose a threat to the UK she must be subject to those restrictions available to protect the nation against dangerous Islamists. Her child - if it lives - will be taken for fostering or adoption, unless her family can establish they are suitable for the task.

Morally, many will argue she has forfeited her right to the care of the State. Well, that has to be established in law. But the one thing she doesn't deserve is a free pardon before she's even crossed the border.


Anonymous said...

At last we agree, Raed.

Billy Marlene said...

Oh, the poor ‘heavily pregnant’ dote.

Can one be ‘lightly pregnant’? What a useful trump card this condition is turning out to be. Hardly a day passes without it being played.

Of course, she has another option which is to go and live with the Dutch grandparents of her, soon to be born, child.

She needs to get a wiggle on though - free movement of EU citizens will hopefully end on 30 March.

One thing is for sure; not a minute of civil service time or taxpayers money should be squandered unless and until she rocks up at a UK Immigration Desk.

At that point she should be placed ‘under the care’ of MI5 - for some considerable time.

Anonymous said...

The law, unfortunately, cannot prescribe for every machination of the cynical, determined to exploit its incapacity to do that.

It is the mark of a civilised country, that we afford Due Process to those legally so entitled, but who clearly despise our civilisation, with good grace.

So let us be careful not to abandon our finest aspects in a red mist.

Poisonedchalice said...

On page 25 of The Times today (Friday 15th) is the Comments section, written by Philip Collins. He does, of course, point out that "rule of law" should take precedence over any gut reaction to leave her to rot in Syria. The final paragraph sums up the problem when it says - "The privilege of living quietly is precisely what the rule of law protects, as it should be in this most testing of cases".

The trouble with that final paragraph is that it, somewhat inconveniently, overlooks the right to a quiet and peaceful existence of the other 65M people who live here; something that Shamima Begum is dead-set against. And as far as I know (and I'm no legal expert) the primary job of any government is to protect its people and, in my opinion, this trumps any other argument to allow her back in the UK.

Charles said...

It is amazing how worked up people are getting over a stupid young woman. This is a useful smokescreen for all the dangerous and equally stupid young men who are sneaking back in. Let the woman in, inflict social services on her if you wish and then forget about her. It is not her unborn child’s fault after all.

We have more than enough laws in this country, what is lacking is their firm application.

jack ketch said...

Above my paygrade guv, but I have always taken the view that the women ,who went out to be wives for IS fighters, should be punished more severely than those fighters themselves (that whole 'drummer boy' thing) and that they pose a graver danger to our society upon their return than the boys.

On the other hand i am a supporter of the 'plead the belly' argument that pregnant women and those with babies should not be sent to prison, especially young women who were still children themselves at the time of the offence.

Wessexboy said...

Well, as our govt. prepares a text (All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims - Islamophobia Defined) without really mentioning Allah, Muhammad or the Qran, but getting quite twisted about people being a bit anxious, and even discriminatory towards Muslims...
Isn't it time to look at the text that caused all these problems in the first place? The Qran is full of 'hatespeech' to use modern parlance. I keep hearing from apologists who have not read it, but are more than willing to tell me there is no harm in it. Where else can but here and in the Haddiths can we find the source of all so-called radicalisation?

Anonymous said...

PC, the problem with not letting people back in is that the UK is surrounded not by a vast, empty desert, but by other countries. If these people make their way to the UK border at Calais, say, then why should the poor French have to retain an Islamist menace, who is also a UK citizen? How would you feel if it were the other way round?

Anonymous said...

She has already lost two brats, a result of her irresponsible decision making. It really won't be a loss to anyone if she looses a third.

Anyway, She's married a Dutch traitor. Let the Dutch sort it out

Anonymous said...

Radders, you're getting more squishy with age.

I think Brendan O'Neill has it spot on:

Anonymous said...

So much negativity. Properly handled, she is an anti-ISIL/radicalisation propaganda coup in the making.

Dave_G said...

All this does is cement in peoples minds that the UK is a 'soft touch' and full of do-good idiots - regardless of the facts of the matter.

It will encourage yet more undesireables to head our way.

All I know is that when it comes to my dotage and Mrs Dave_G can't look after me (or vice versa) I'll walk into a bank and 'rob it' for the three hot meals and a snug room with a TV that will be my reward.

You can keep your 72 virgins.

Stephen J said...

Perhaps an IS welcome?

Anyone got a bucket and blade?

Smoking Scot said...

Can we politely request the Syrian authorities declare her a terrorist, and might they please hand her over to the Americans to interrogate in Guantanamo?

And could all involved feel free to drag their heels for the next couple of decades.

jack ketch said...

I can't quite get the ditzy blond, early 30s, out of my head. So
antifa, so passionate she was about The Cause that she went off to join her loser husband, a
failed policeman, who was already fighting with the Communist
insurgents in some god forsaken foreign war. Working in military
planning and running tea and cigars under fire to her man -truly a
helpmeet and comforter as scripture says a wife should be. After her
husband caught a bullet to the throat and survived, she accompanied
him back to the UK and became a docile, law abiding housewife and
mother before going mad after her beloved brother got blown up in
another sordid war. Died on an operating table far too young having
her uterus removed. Can't quite recall her name but the family name,
her husband's surname, was 'Blair'.

Span Ows said...

I can't believe all the hoo-ha. What should be done with immediate effect, now that her position is revealed, is get one of our bods out there to slot her, double tap.

Anonymous said...

We can moan as much we like but we all know she's coming back and nothing will happen to her. The Home Secretary will get angry and promise "something must be done" but nothing will. He will then blame the law for being powerless despite the fact that his job is to change or write laws. The Daily Mail will harass the girl and her family for a few months until they get bored.
I remember Jack Straw stating the day after the Stanstead hijack that they would face justice and be deported. Where are they all now? Living in council houses in Hounslow.

leila said...

Span Ows has the answer Why are you Brits so soft and useless when it comes to standing up for your homeland? She will sponge off welfare her entire life and is a candidate for diabetes. If the law is in the way change it for one that can be applied to 7th Century inhabitants.

Anonymous said...

We bring these problems on ourselves.
Had the report come back that the terrorists had fought to the last man, woman and child, there were no survivors. I would have accepted that and not cared to ask how it occurred. That is how it should be they chose to be terrorists.

DeeDee99 said...

In the event she returns to the UK our "justice system" and the human rights brigade will leap into action to ensure that all she gets is a mild rebuke for being such a silly little girl, at age 15, to disappear off to play at being an Islamist.

Which is why I don't want her back here. She is a terrorist and I have no confidence that she will face appropriate punishment or her baby be removed - permanently - from her influence.

Anonymous said...

DeeDee, this is not a Human Rights issue. It is one of international law relating to statelessness.

However, this is just a tiny part of a big, big problem for the world of the Enlightenment - that might even include England and the US - and it isn't going to be solved any time soon.

John Brown said...

Shamima’s parents/family have already demonstrated that they are unsuitable to bring up her child. They failed miserably with Shamima.

In fact, I believe that in many cases it is the parents who are the “groomers”.

Can she not be considered to be a prisoner of war and hence locked up until hostilities cease ?

Is it not time that legislation existed for either a minister or Parliament to be able to declare that a UK visa is needed to travel to specific, war torn, terrorist troubled parts of the world so that only genuine news reporters or humanitarian aid workers could travel legally to these destinations?

Then it is only necessary to ascertain if non-visa holders were in such a territory for prosecution.

So we don’t have the “we only intended to go to Turkey on holiday and don’t know how we ended up in eastern Syria in an ISIS enclave" stories.

Anonymous said...

Anon 22.13

Yes, so why then, did the US capture 800 of these rabid dogs rather than killing them?

Trump says that Europe - including the UK - should take them back or he will release them, and they will come anyway. His cynical game is rather clear, isn't it?