Shamima Begum Should Be Allowed to Return to Britain as Her Human Rights Are Being Violated, Review Finds
ISIS bride Shamima Begum and other Britons in Syrian camps should be allowed back into the UK on human rights grounds and because many will come back illegally anyway, an independent review has found. The Mail has more.
The ISIS bride is currently living in a detention camp in Syria after she fled her home in east London at the age of 15 to join Islamic State in 2015.
But the Independent Commission on UK Counterterrorism concluded after a three-year review that she and other Britons held in Syrian camps should be repatriated.
It said the camps risked being seen as “Britain’s Guantanamo” – a reference to the US detention facility Guantanamo Bay, which was used to indefinitely hold al-Qaeda suspects in the years following the 9/11 atrocities in 2001.
The controversial comparison is meant to reflect that Begum is being held in detention without charge or trial. The commission added that conditions in Syrian camps such as Al Hol and Al Roj amounted to “inhuman and degrading treatment”.
Members of the body include former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, Richard Barrett, the former global counter-terrorism director of MI6, and ex-Greater Manchester Police chief Sir Peter Fahy.
Estimates have suggested there could be between 50 and 70 British citizens held in Syrian camps – the majority of them women and also comprising 12 to 30 children.
Begum had her UK citizenship revoked after joining ISIS but has been pursuing legal campaigns to get it back and return to Britain.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer previously criticised the decision to strip Begum of her citizenship, but went on to change his stance by insisting that national security “comes first”.
The new report by the counter-terrorism commission has said that letting UK-linked people remain in such facilities in Syria was “inconsistent” with human rights obligations.
It stated: “The Government should facilitate the voluntary repatriation for British nationals, including those deprived of British nationality.
“It should appoint a special envoy to oversee repatriation and inform returnees of the likelihood of prosecution.
“As escapes from camps are likely to lead to some returns to the UK, an organised programme of return, rehabilitation and integration is the best long-term option for managing risk.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Independent Commission stuffed with the usual suspects. Of course.
Yes because what this country really needs right now is to import more terrorist supporting ragheads.
Another crazy moment from Farage.
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-01-10/nigel-farage-says-government-should-consider-allowing-shamima-begum-back-home
“ISIS bride Shamima Begum and other Britons in Syrian camps should be allowed back into the UK on human rights grounds and because many will come back illegally anyway, an independent review has found.”
I’ve tweaked the above a tad to make it align more with government and civil service policy:
“Anyone in 3rd world countries should be allowed into the UK on human rights grounds because many are headed this way anyway, an independent review has found.”
Actually we’ve got a load of people we’d like to send there. Approx. 3 million in fact.
And, when she’s back, unlike Lucy Connelly, she will not spend a day in prison even though she actively supported terrorism.
Why the flattering photo, supporting this Bangladeshi Muslim Beheaders Groupie in her relentless PR campaign to re-invent herself and sneak back into the country she openly betrayed? She is NOT being “held in detention without charge or trial”. She is FREE TO LEAVE at any time, to return to her FATHER in Bangladesh, or her HUSBAND in HOLLAND.
But she insists on remaining to get sympathy and return to Britain, against the wishes of the whole British nation. She’s in Syria, which is now completely controlled by Muslim Terrorists like herself, so she is WELCOME there, and in no danger at all. Perhaps the new Terrorist Leader of Syria will give her a medal for Services to the Caliphate.
Here’s a more honest photo:
Thanks for that photo
It’s a bit daring though, isn’t it? I mean, her face is still visible.
Yes but at least that Islamic loin inflaming hair and bare shoulders are covered
Yeah, I really don’t know how we kaffirs manage to control ourselves.
Sadly!
Yes, and you can just see her two front teeth starting to poke out through her gap-toothed smile, which is why she always keeps her mouth closed for photo shoots…
So we’d better make damn’ sure that we can positively identify them so they can’t claim to be someone else when they turn up in the criminal justice system after entering the country illegally. They do not have residency rights.
I don’t understand the basis for this judgement at all. She voluntarily left this country and having arrived in a foreign land presumably committed offences there. If I go abroad and break the law, I will face trial and imprisonment in the country I am in, not back here, so why is she not facing whatever justice Syria decides. If they feel no crime has been committed, they can deport her to the land of her citizenship, which is not here, because she chose a life incompatible with our values, so she can rely on her Bangladeshi citizenship.
And her husband in Holland…
She faces no “justice” from the new Muslim Terrorist government of Syria— she’s perfectly safe there among her Muslim Terrorist friends and the whole Syrian government, and free to leave the camp or the country at any time !!!
But they don’t pay Syrian Welfare Benefits. Who then is paying for all her western fashion outfits?
Once the Labour government have allowed her to sneak back into Britain, she can bring in her husband from Holland, so the pair of them can go on British Welfare Benefits for Life, and she can make a fortune by writing a book and appearing on television interviews. Maybe the BBC will give her her own show.
Sod that for a game of soldiers! You forfeit your privilege to claim any human rights once you become a terrorist or support terrorism. This woman and her ilk are a threat to the country and any government who allows her to set a foot back onto UK turf is guilty of treason. They would be literally broadcasting the fact that they prioritise terrorists over law-abiding, decent citizens. And of course Starmer wasn’t happy about the stripping of her citizenship, considering it was him that allegedly ( not sure if this was ever confirmed ) supported the Southport child killer’s parents getting into the UK when they were perfectly fine in Uganda. They also have links to terrorism, by all accounts. Haven’t you got enough jihadis coming over on the boats, FGS? Lest we forget that it’s the anniversary of the Bataclan mass murder today, where ISIS claimed responsibility. You can’t just state you no longer have this mentality, so once a terrorist, always a terrorist, imo; ”On November 13, 2015, Islamist terrorists killed 130 people in Paris, including 90 inside the Bataclan theatre. Another 416 were injured, nearly 100 of them critically. It was the deadliest terrorist attack in… Read more »
So the UK State Administration doesn’t consider a violation of human rights my being locked up in my home arbitrarily or being forced to wear a face mask in public or being aggressively coerced into taking an experimental jab. But this is.
And they wonder why respect for our institutions is collapsing. Gee, I wonder why that might be.
If only we could get somebody like Mossad to sort this out.
Whoops, Starmer.
I must disagree with most (all) of the comments posted.
I believe that she should be allowed to return to the UK as she was not an adult when she left.
Being not an adult she had the same legal status as a 12 year old. Would you say that a 12 year old had the intellectual capacity to resist the influence of her own religion or resist peer pressure from the larger Muslim community. At what age do you draw a distinction between a 12 year old and a 15 year old.
In Rotherham would you have said that a 15 year old girl was responsible for her own actions when she was being sexually abused? The age limit is there for a reason.
In theory, you have a point here. But here’s an article about her at 19, when she was actually stripped of her British citizenship:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6720367/Shamima-Begum-expect-spoken-returns-UK-police-chief.html
And this renders your point moot.
Well, Labour Party and the councillors and social workers thought the girls in Rotherham were making a “lifestyle choice “, so that rather answers your point.
Don’t care.
I disagree with you and I did downvote your post, however, props to you for coming on here and sharing your viewpoint, which you knew to be contrary to the majority’s opinion on this matter.
This place functions as an echo chamber for the most part, and opinions which deviate from the general consensus are few and far between, which can be tedious and is not conducive to actual debate.
Therefore, it’s a 👍 from me for bothering to chime in when you could’ve just stayed silent. More people should try it. We all pay to comment, after all.
It’s no less wrong. The lady was 15 ten years ago and she was already of age when she made the statements which caused here to be stripped of her British citizenship. I don’t claim that this was necessarily the right thing to do and not just a cheap publicity stunt of a past home secretary but that’s a different question. She isn’t a child anymore and she chose to stay were she’s presently living until well into adulthood.
Yes, see her speaking at 19 years old (see the video clip at 1:53 – 2:17 minutes) about how she knew about all the Muslim beheadings and atrocities before she went there, and was perfectly fine with it, almost shrugging her shoulders…
🚨LIVE! ISLAMIST FEARS OVER PLOT TO MAKE SHABANA MAHMOOD PM AMID SHOCK OVER SHAMIMA BEGUM RETURN🚨
I find your viewpoint warped and perverse. This woman was born and raised in England. If she was being influenced to terrorise, behead and massacre innocent people then we have a very serious problem indeed, which would only be made worse by reimporting her. Was there any time during your development into adulthood that you would have wanted to inflict this kind of injury on other human beings? A twelve year old is a sentient being who should know good from evil, I know I did, and if they do not there is a very strong chance they never will. There is no need for the UK to take that chance.
Spot on. And here is a video clip of her speaking at 19 years old (see 1:53 – 2:17 minutes), saying how she knew about Muslim atrocities and beheadings before she even went to join them, and it didn’t bother her. She is totally cold, a classic psychopath without empathy or remorse:
🚨LIVE! ISLAMIST FEARS OVER PLOT TO MAKE SHABANA MAHMOOD PM AMID SHOCK OVER SHAMIMA BEGUM RETURN🚨
We need to hear from Farage that he no longer harbours doubts about keeping Begum out, (astonishingly) expressed by him to ITV News in January this year. If he supports her return in any way the consequences for Reform will be disastrous. With the prospect of Mahmood for PM that would be a perfect storm.
Absolutely. I was really shocked at his weasel words about the Bangladeshi Muslim Terrorist Begum.
But Pakistani Muslim Closet Extremist Mahmood cannot legally hold the post of Prime Minister, though others before her have trampled upon this British law: Catholic Truss, Hindu Sunak & Jewish Starmer.
Only Protestants may legally hold the posts of Monarch and Monarch’s Prime Minister, as I have said many times before.
And the monarch cannot marry someone who is divorced, never mind with children from a previous marriage. I am so sick of rulers who only go by the book when it suits them and the running sore of deceit festering in this country.
Well, I thought that the law had been changed in recent years, in the slow subversive march by the Vatican to drag all Protestant nations back into Maryolatry, so I looked it up. The law, changed in 2013, now says that the Monarch can marry someone who is divorced, or is a Catholic, but the Monarch CANNOT be a Catholic (or Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, etc.) themselves. The new law also allowed female children to be in the line of succession to the throne. Queen Camilla never converted to the Catholicism of her first husband, and even though her children were raised as Catholics, she remained a member of the Protestant Church of England, like King Charles (unless he has quietly converted to Islam). It seems the Globalist plan is to create a new Global Goddess Religion, using the Catholic worship of Impostor Mary, combined with the recently invented Chinese replacement of the Buddha with Guan Yin (who was originally a male god of compassion, turned by the government into a female, with a baby stuck in her arms, and Buddha statues banished to the back of temples), as well as the Muslim veneration of Fatima, any number of Hindu… Read more »
I’m wondering when the rest of us get Rights, or are they just for the favoured few?
As a father of teenage daughters, I have nothing but disgust and contempt for the parents of this terrorist.
It may be that she “self radicalised” but I’m wondering how much groundwork was laid by her parents in her formative years, in terms of their religion and relationship to wider British society. I cannot believe they were unaware of the worldview that led their daughter to join up a religious war, as claimed, or that they contributed nothing toward her indoctrination.
Again, as a father, if I then heard my daughter had been “found” in a refugee/prisoner of war camp, I would be on the first plane out – whatever personal risks that may entail.
Both parents should be placed on registers of those sympathetic to terrorism. They clearly believe that their “rights” to “family life” come before any sense of risks posed or loyalty to the United Kingdom. As I understand that they hold dual citizenship with Bangladesh, perhaps deportation there – or a move to Syria – might let them reunite their family with their terrorist daughter.
In one respect only do I feel sorry for Shamima Begum. It seems to me she has been singled out for this “special treatment” whilst hundreds of other have just waltzed back in to the UK without a peep. It is as though we are all being kept busy keeping her out suggesting a strong Home Office policy whilst they deliberately let in hundreds of others without any concerns being raised.
In that sense she is unlucky but too bad. I’m only sorry that so many others have got away with joining a terrorist organisation and are back here claiming every benefit they can.
She made her choice. Suck it up. I don’t want her here.
I love her baseball cap. She has obviously turned a corner. Looks lovely now, doesn’t she. I mean, she can’t be all bad, now can she. Give her a chance the poor lass.
Well dressing like the Hooded Claw when on a suicide mission will make you stand out so the baseball cap is blend in.
Good point!
She should be handed over to the Syrian Government for trial.
The Syrian Government is now controlled by Muslim Terrorists like her, and they would GIVE HER A MEDAL for services to the Caliphate instead of arresting her. She is in NO DANGER AT ALL, and is completely free to leave Syria whenever she pleases, to return to her father in her native Bangladesh, or to her husband in Holland, or to live anywhere in Syria.
It was the previous elected Syrian Government led by President Assad who would have arrested her, not the Muslim Terrorists who drove him out of his own country and seized control, and are now busy persecuting the Syrian Christians that President Assad, and his father before him, PROTECTED FROM MUSLIM & KURDISH ATTACKS, before the West were deceived into helping Muslim Terrorists drive him out.
President Assad and his father DROVE THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD OUT OF SYRIA, but they simply moved their headquarters to London, under the welcoming, avuncular eye of Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan.
She’s probably already here via one of the dinghys, unless France has stopped her 🤣🤣🤣
She should never be allowed back, I don’t care if she was a teenager, she knew exactly what she was doing, if her “husband” was still alive, she would no doubt have committed terrorism, or still be commiting it, she is not a british citizen, has no rights and can stay where she is, why should hard working people have to pay to protect filth like that, because unless protected, pretty damn sure someone would deal with her, as she intended to do to others, rot in hell.
Well said, Rusty!
“CHRISTOPHER STEVENS reviews last night’s TV: Sneering Shamima wants second chance that Isis victims never had”
CHRISTOPHER STEVENS reviews last night’s TV | Daily Mail Online
“There seems to be a Left-wing delusion that allowing her to return to the UK will demonstrate some sort of moral righteousness.
To achieve this, her supporters paint her as the victim of people traffickers, brainwashers, groomers and propaganda, and traumatised by an abusive marriage.”
“No longer the sullen, contemptuous teenager of her first encounters with journalists, she now dresses in Western clothes, with sunglasses perched on her head.
But she cannot hide the remnants of that SURLY ARROGANCE which made her DESPISE BRITAIN and her upbringing.”
“She contradicted herself repeatedly in interviews, and claimed she was unaware of Isis atrocities before she arrived in Syria — yet also said ‘IT DIDN’T FAZE ME’ when, following public executions, ‘I SAW THE BEHEADED IN BINS’.
The camera closed in on her eyes and mouth, which opened in a faint sneer, as she listened to the questions. “
I do not want to see this woman back here for one reason and one reason only: by the time the human rights lawyers get stuck in, she will be out on our streets.
One thing evident to most is that we hand out passports in this country waaaay to easily.
Yes, in Maggie Thatcher’s time, foreigners had get a legal work permit and work in the same full-time job for seven years continuously (not chopping and changing from car washes to care homes to delivery drivers), paying full taxes, and never going on welfare benefits of any kind before they were even allowed to apply for citizenship.
All such requirements were later thrown out by successive governments of the Uniparty, helped by the outrageous Commonwealth Citizens Voting Rights in British Elections, which the founder of Migration Watch, Lord Andrew Green, campaigned for decades to ABOLISH, because they overwhelm the votes of British Citizens.