February 24, 2024 - 1:00pm
Nine years since Shamima Begum left the UK to join Islamic State, and five since her British citizenship was stripped from her by then-Home Secretary Sajid Javid, her long legal tussle with HM Government may finally be coming to an end. The Court of Appeal has ruled unanimously that Javid’s decision was lawful, and that none of the grounds for Begum’s challenge have any merit.
In a week when the alleged Islamist threat to the functioning of Britain’s open democracy has once again been in the news, the Appeal Court’s decision must be welcomed as a sign that the British establishment may yet have some steel. Many have argued that the loss of citizenship is an unfair sanction, because Begum was only 15 when she travelled to Syria, or that stripping the citizenship of someone who was born here sets a bad precedent for the future.
These arguments are unpersuasive. It is true that teenagers are highly impressionable and frequently act stupidly. Fifteen-year-old girls being attracted to the dark glamour of revolutionary violence is not unprecedented. But we can recognise that Begum’s situation is miserable, and that she is not entirely culpable, without concluding that the only right response is for her to return to Britain.
There is a tragic dimension to human existence. Sometimes people do awful things which ruin their lives and the lives of others, like joining a savage terrorist organisation and participating in its atrocities, and there’s not much that can be done to resolve their situations without creating further or deeper injustices and dangers — in this case, hampering the British state’s ability to defend itself and assert its authority in the face of monstrous enemies.
This brings us to the argument about the alleged injustice of removing citizenship from someone who was born in the UK. This is supposedly the thin end of the wedge: if the Home Office can do it to her they can do it to any of us, runs the argument.
Yet, arguably, the Government is only recognising a simple reality which Begum has herself established: that she has no allegiance to or affection for Britain, beyond a transactional desire to benefit from the services and quality of life available here.
What’s more, this is an age of sweeping demographic change, when many people resident in Britain hold UK citizenship while clearly retaining other loyalties. Consider the national flags on show at recent pro-Palestine marches, or the 2022 Indian-Pakistani communal violence in Leicester, or the blocking of London streets in November of last year by motorcades celebrating Albanian independence day.
In this context, it is vital that the state has tools at its disposal to recognise when someone’s Britishness is a matter of words on a page, and when they are an integrated member of society.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThanks for this piece, especially after Freddie gave Jonnie such an easy ride in that interview. One of the reasons why the Secretary of State was given such a draconian power as stripping undesirables of citizenship was to incentivise those who obtain UK citizenship to bring up their kids with at least a modicum of respect for the UK. The legislation has been in place since 1981, so it pre-dates multiculturalism (otherwise known as “deliberate non-assimilation”). Consequently, since Shamima’s time, this aspect of the Nationality Act has been forgotten and UK citizenship has been given out like confetti, with no obligations. So maybe a sharp reminder to other families about the consequences of a terrrorist gap year is not a bad thing.
This is a completely misguided post and distorts the facts. Shamima Begum was not “given” British nationality, she is not a naturalised subject. She was born in Britain and grew up there. She has known no other country, and went to schools in Britain.
If those schools, if the environment the British state provided for her to grow up in, was not capable of instilling a sense of civic responsibility in her, is that the responsibility of the child, or of the state?
If you place the responsibility with her parents – again, is that fair to the child?
This is not to say she should get off scot-free – she should be brought back, charged, and have her day in court, facing a jury of her peers. As is the birth-right of every citizen.
Brought back and charged with what? Whatever she got up to in Syria is now a matter for their authorities. UK courts have no jurisdiction in Syria.
I’m afraid your argument regarding the school system amounts to little more than lazily ‘blaming society’. If the school system is at fault, then why do many other children not behave in the same way? Why didn’t her parents instil respect for the UK in her? Perhaps they tried and were unsuccessful or perhaps they didn’t care much about the UK either. It may well be that she’s a truculent individual. Plenty of decent parents try their best with children who go off the rails. It isn’t so much about what she was as what she may or may not have done after leaving and what she has now become.
Just because you were born somewhere does not confer an indefinite right of return at a time of your choosing. Not knowing anywhere else is also not a defence against having to face the music for your actions outside of the country where you grew up. I also don’t buy the two tier argument. The reality is that you cannot remove citizenship from someone with no other options. This means your society is lumbered with them; they’re your problem and nobody else’s. This isn’t a good enough reason not to use legal process to rid yourself of people who may be a serious threat to your society if one is available to you. Just because you’re stuck with one doesn’t mean you are obliged to be stuck with two.
This is a red herring. If she has committed crimes against the UK, she can be prosecuted regardless of where the crime was committed. If she has committed crimes in international law, she can be prosecuted in the UK regardless of where the crime was committed. If she has committed a common crime in Syria which is also a crime in the UK, Syria can apply for her extradition or require the UK authorities to prosecute her in the UK.
Sure. And precisely who is going to go to Syria to locate witnesses and investigate her activities?
Perhaps, Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers? Er, then again, maybe not.
Would you mind explaining why the UK should go to the trouble of convening a special international court?
If you get caught smuggling smack into Singapore, your goose is well and truly cooked and you stand trial there. You don’t get special treatment and a flight home to stand trial here, even if you might face the death penalty. The Foreign Office may ask for clemency, but the state where the crime was committed has no requirement to deviate from their normal legal process.
Your argument about extradition to Syria after being tried here is the red herring. You know full well that there are no extradition arrangements between the UK and Syria and returning anyone there is almost impossible under any circumstances.
You have deliberately misrepresented what I actually said. I did not say that Shamima was “given” UK nationality. Also, I specifically do not say it is up to the “child or the state” to stop her supporting Islamist violence. UK law means immigrant parents have to bear some responsibility for bringing up their children. If they didn’t like that aspect of UK they did not have to come here.
She would almost certainly get off scot-free if she returned to the UK. More than 90% of ISIS returnees have never been prosecuted.
Why would she not be prosecuted? Because she is not worth prosecuting? Then I doubt she is so dangerous that allowing her to return would be a fatal danger to the State.
Why would she not be prosecuted? Because she is not worth prosecuting?
No, because the judicial authorities in the UK are scared sh1tless of Muslims. Who is going to prosecute her and expose his or her family to danger? No-one is.
… and denying her citizenship will fix this problem?
It certainly will
You nailed it. Exaggerated self-entitlement, killer bee-like knee jerk reactions to perceived threat, coupled with ineffectual/ineffective policing which, by inaction, normalises these as acceptable.
Because the legal system is quaking in its shoes in case it stirs up the sensibilities of the cult of permanent offence?
that’s your most imbecilic argument yet. and that really is saying something.
Indeed. ‘The Gas Man Cometh’, as it were …
Who is going to sit on this ‘jury’ and put themselves and their families in danger? You need to go out and explore the real world.
… and denying her citizenship will fix this problem?
No, but it might in some small way indicate to people like her that they’re not welcome in Britain.
and save the British Taxpayer a shedload of money & aggravation in the process.
Multiculturalism was introduced to validate the brute fact that hordes of people from alien cultures who clustered together and had no desire ti integrate presented a challenge to the British state . How could British schools hope to instil ‘a sense of civic responsibility in her ‘ when the culture she was born into and surrounded by adhered to the mainstream values of Bangladesh and not the UK ?
So mass migration of unassimilable people entails multiculturalism which in the case of Muslims results in children being taught the mainstream values of the white infidels are Haram and to be consciously rejected . This in turn made Shamima Begum susceptible to an even more extreme version of the Islamic culture into which she was born , which would be in control of its society rather than merely forming an oppositional group within it , namely ISIS .
So mass migration of Muslims to the UK was a disaster from the outset , made worse by allowing arranged / forced marriages with first cousins from back home . This not only led to large numbers babies being born with problems from inbreeding , it also gave an additional incentive to parents to forbid their children forming friendships with Kuffar / white children .
So Shamima Begum sitting in a camp in , I think , Syria is result of the terrible policy of allowing her parents or grandparents to move from Bangladesh to the UK .
We are still waiting for the judgment on the Michaela College case to see whether the ban on “prayer rituals” it imposed after Muslim students started bullying other Muslim students is legal or not.
The story of Michaela college is fascinating. They are trying some very innovative stuff (like singing the national anthem!) either to make multiculturalism work or to find a workable alternative to multiculturalism, depending on your view of what multiculturalism is. It all seemed to be working very well until a Muslim girl got legal aid funding to take them to court!
https://staging.unherd.com/newsroom/britains-strictest-head-teacher-my-case-to-ban-prayer-in-school/
Single faith schools have been a disaster for social cohesion.
Begum’s parents probably basked in her questionable glory.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-acknowledges-acts-of-genocide-committed-by-daesh-against-yazidis
‘The UK officially acknowledges five instances where genocide has occured: the Holocaust, Rwanda, Srebenica and also of genocide in Cambodia and against the Yazidi people.’
How about facing a jury of her Yazidi peers?
Quite – she is our problem and we have no right to dump her on anyone else.
This article misses the point. It does not matter that the was only 15 when she went, or that she claims to be trafficked, that she was born in Britain, or that the sanction is supposedly ‘unfair’. For all of that we can leave her in her refugee camp – and good riddance. What matters is that she was a British citizen, that she had no other citizenship, and that therefore taking away her UK citizenship left her stateless. And that is unacceptable – whatever the law says.. There are rules against making people stateless, for the very good reason that allowing it would let governments play ping-pong with people’s lives, with everybody refusing citizenship to undesirables and playing at buck-passing: ‘You take her’, ‘No, you take her.’, ‘No, you take her’, … She was never a Bangla-Deshi citizen, and Bangla Desh does not want her any more than Britain does.
For every person there has to be some country that ends up with the responsibility of dealing with her. In the case of Shamima Begum, that country is the UK – much as we might prefer otherwise.
God, what a wet you are.
Splash! 😉
No. It’s Syria. If you come to my country and murder and abuse its people, then you have to answer to the laws of my country, not someone else’s. She must be returned to Syria.
No objection to that. But it still does not change the fact that by right she is a British citizen.
By “Right”, eh? How about by responsibility?
Fine. She can come back when she’s served her sentence in Syria.
Was
Whatever she is she is not British.
My sons’ grandmother was born in India. That does no make her or them Indian
“For every person there has to be some country that ends up with the responsibility of dealing with her. In the case of Shamima Begum, that country is the UK”
No, that country is Syria, where her alleged cromes were committed. How would you feel if the Libyans had taken the Manchester Arena bomber’s accomplice, Hashem Abedi , back to Libya and let him go Scot-free? Well we have no more right to spirit Shamima out of Syria, especially since there is less than a one in ten chance that she would be prosecuted here, given that her only UK crime was to steal a passport.
People like her would have been executed for treason during and immediately after the second world war so she should be grateful she still alive
She has Bangladeshi citizenship, which is what allowed the government to annul her British citizenship.
That’s not correct.
“She was never a Bangla-Deshi citizen, and Bangla Desh does not want her any more than Britain does.”
That’s debatable: the government would not have been able to deny her return if it was that simple.
The reality is that there are quite a few people in this country whose nations of origin are privately relieved they’re our problem now. This is a 21st century problem that Britain has not yet learned how to cope with: we’ve become a dumping ground for criminals and lunatics who are every bit as toxic in their nations of origin as they are here, but we have human rights laws and a gravy train welfare state that means a giant game of silly buggers at the taxpayers expense and no realistic means of efficiently them booting out.
How we cope with Shamima Begum might be yet another Britain-is-the-world’s-doormat moment, or it might be the start of some realpolitik in which Britain recognises that it’s own queensbury-rules attitude to international law makes it a mug on the world stage.
One thing I do know: if Begum is allowed to return here, she’ll get a short prison sentence that’ll be a holiday camp compared to where she is now, and then a bunch of north London activist idiots will turn her into a victim and she’ll eventually end up living a life of relative privilege that is not available to millions of decent, honest Britons who never committed any crime. That’s the part that I can’t accept.
And that is unacceptable ..well to you maybe-certainly acceptable to the Court of Appeal-amazingly
A citizen is a participatory member of a political community. Citizenship is gained by meeting the legal requirements of a national, state, or local government. A nation grants certain rights and privileges to its citizens. In return, citizens are expected to obey their country’s laws and defend it against its enemies.
My only question is when can we deport the other traitors?
The short answer is no. The only reason why Begum has faced this sanction is because she was not already back in Britain. The maybe it was trafficking thing appears to be a ruse to get her back to Britain so it can be investigated and once here make it impossible to get her out again.
How much has this one case cost the British tax payer already?
What if you are the traitor, Matty? Maybe we should deport you?
I’ll worry about that when I next decide to join Isis.
You’d better worry soon, Matty – who knows who the incoming Labour government will decide is a traitor now this precedent has been set?
I don’t understand the downvotes on this; for once, Champagne Socialist is making a valid point. (Although admittedly, I doubt it was the point it was intending to make).
I’ve got it your Shamima Begun.
I claim my £10
There was a time when the penalty for treason was death. Shemima Begum should think twice before wishing to turn the clock of civilisation back hundreds of years.
Certainly-anybody who willingly joins a death cult abroad and indulges in and celebrates the unbridled barbarism can be deported as far as I’m concerned.Although of course the fragrant Ms Shanina hasn’t been deported-just told she can’t come back-much to the relief of the vast majority of the country.
The question needs to be asked: Why are people born in this country learning to hate it so much that they will bear arms against it? Begum is nowhere near the first and no where near the worst (remember the 7/7 tube and bus bombers were all born in UK).
The Tories have been too cowardly to ask it and Labour is likely to make it “hate speech” for anyone to ask it.
Absolute classic example of what I mean:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68396559
A Tory has had the guts to say something about Islamist influence on the Mayor of London and rather than look into whether there is any merit in what is a very serious allegation, the argument is about whether the comments are Islamophobic or not.
If the comments have been made without hard evidence to back them, then Anderson should be sacked. If there is evidence then Khan should rebut that evidence and if he can’t, he should be sacked. I think it would be better for that to play out in some form of open to the public but formal proceeding, rather than a free for all media circus. What should not be allowed to happen, but almost certainly will happen, is for there to be masses and masses of pointless talk about Islamophobia, whilst the actual allegation conveniently gets completely obscured and then forgotten.
Great point
Pathetic. A Tory home secretary trying to look tough before his bug eyed lunatic voters strips a British citizen of her rights. Javid should be ashamed of himself.
More piffling provocation and sucker bait from sham pain. Any takers?
My faithful retainer! Still following me around like the little kid at school who wants to play with the big boys!
Maybe one day, sonny!
But all red for you, chum so Satori wins the sweepstakes on this forum.
You can always be relied upon to come up with the most dementedly-stupid opinion available, can’t you?
Not that I agree with him but it’s good to have some different points of view and debate here, rather than a complete echo chamber, which doesn’t really advance much.
ps great debate on here, good reading!
It’s difficult to avoid the perception at times that he’s actually a right-winger seeking to discredit the Progressive Left by impersonating one of its more irrational and histrionic adherents.
Denying her citizenship is the weak, cowardly way out.
Strong, self-confident countries take responsibility for their citizens. Evidently, Sajid Javid’s government was so pusillanimous that it quailed in terror before this consummate threat to the realm.
If Shamima Begum really is the double-O number operative she is made out to be, then it would be far better to bring her back to Britain and have her under surveillance, rather than risk her vanishing into the penumbra of the stateless, lawless no-mans-land she is in now, only to surface at some point in the future in a place of her choosing.
If Britain is confident Shamima Begum is a criminal, then bring her back and charge her – give her her day in court, and if she’s guilty, put her away.
Strong, self-confident countries hang traitors.
… after a trial by a jury of peers
The UK police allow the targeting of Orthodox Jews among quite a few under the impotent gaze of its police, who do little or nothing to protect them, and instead protects the rights of those who attack them.
What on earth has you believing that she’d be kept under surveillance?
‘Begum has herself established: that she has no allegiance to or affection for Britain’.
To be fair to Ms Begum, the same is true of half the British ruling class.
In that case, setting a precedent in which such people may lose their right to live in Britain might have exceptional benefits for the rest of us who possess allegiance to and affection for Britain.
Censored
Excellent. Suck s..t you little Islamon*zi. And, bonus, something else for the “river to the sea” mob to soil their nappies about.
She Wilfully decided to join ISIS
She Deliberately evaded efforts to track her down
She Consciously married a murderer
She Purposely sewed murderers into suicide vests
She Intentionally and actively participated in the policing of the terror
She Knowingly stayed in place for years
She has Methodically tried to evade the consequences of her actions
I take a different view, and it has absolutely nothing to do with sympathy for Shamima Begum.
Begum grew up in the UK, and by wiping our hands of her, our government demonstrates that it wants to avoid the uncomfortable fact that our society is breeding passport-holding British citizens who are Islamic fundamentalists that hate our western values.
By wiping our hands of Begum on the tenuous pretext that she’s “not really British” we can pretend that our society is not dangerously fractured and divided down religious and ethnic divides.
That is why I think she should be allowed back. Because for me, it would be a sign that we have taken at least one small step towards looking with unflinching gaze at our failed multicultural society.
I don’t know why everyone is worried about this. The minute sir kneeler gets into power, she will be brought back with full military honours and make a fortune on the bbc telling everyone what a victim she was and how white people are sh1te.
Then, she will marry some lefty loon and laugh all the way to the bank; having rubbed everyone’s noses in “diversity “, just like Tony wanted.
Poor wretch, but manipulative and manipulating. When a societal and religious influences deprive females of their agency they are low hanging fruit for whoever wants to use them for good and ill.
And that is Begum’s being in the world. She will be open to such manipulation all her life
A lot of people commenting on this post are reacting in an instinctive, simplistic, and emotional way to the SB case, claiming that, prima facie, she ought to lose her citizenship rights. ‘How could it be wrong’, they say. For a more nuanced and rational argument, see Jacob Rees-Mogg’s recent article about this in The Spectator. I don’t really like JRM at all, but I’m afraid he’s right on this matter, as hard as it may be to swallow for some.
Quite. This is only time I have ever agreed with JRM. He’s simply right. What kind of regime strips its born-and-bred citizens of their nationality? Places like the Soviet Union.
Perfect, thanks.
About citizenship:- A citizen is a participatory member of a political community. Citizenship is gained by meeting the legal requirements of a national, state, or local government. A nation grants certain rights and privileges to its citizens. In return, citizens are expected to obey their country’s laws and defend it against its enemies. By that definition she shouldn’t be given the privileges of citizenship. End of!
Testing
How is attending a pro-Palestinian march calling for an end to the slaughter of innocents in Gaza disloyal to Britain? The UK’s slavish adherence to the US’s support of Zionist Israel is a source of shame – at least for me as a British (non-muslim) subject.
Enjoy your Islamic future. They don’t really like opinionated women you know.