Shamima Begum’s Ban from Britain Challenged by European Judges
Shamima Begum has had her bid to come back to Britain revived by a challenge from European judges after her lawyer argued she was a victim of grooming and trafficking. The Telegraph has more.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has asked Britain to justify its decision to strip the 26 year-old of her citizenship in 2019 after she travelled to Syria to join Islamic State (IS).
The ECtHR intervention was hailed by Begum’s lawyers as an “unprecedented opportunity” that could pave the way for a fresh legal battle between the Strasbourg court and the Government.
The European judges have asked the Government whether it broke human rights and anti-trafficking laws by blocking her return to the UK – Begum’s key legal argument.
Begum was born and raised in Bethnal Green, east London, before travelling to Syria at the age of 15 with two other friends from school to join IS in 2015.
She later became a child bride to Yago Riedijk, a Dutch Islamic convert, with whom she had three children who all died as infants.
Sir Sajid Javid, the former home secretary, took away her British citizenship on the basis that she could also claim residency in Bangladesh to avoid becoming stateless.
His decision was upheld by the Supreme Court but lawyers for Begum, who is currently held in the al-Roj detention camp in north-eastern Syria, lodged an appeal with the ECtHR.
They argued that she should not have been stripped of her citizenship because she was a victim of grooming and trafficking.
The ECtHR may reject the appeal by Begum’s lawyers after considering the Home Office’s response to its questions.
If it upholds it, ministers will have to “take account” of its judgment. The court’s rulings are technically binding but there is no enforcement mechanism.
In practice, the Government typically amends legislation or policies to comply with the court’s rulings, as with prisoners’ voting rights, where ministers resisted before agreeing a compromise that means offenders on licence can vote.
In a statement on the ECtHR decision, Gareth Peirce, Begum’s lawyer at Birnberg Peirce solicitors, said Mr Javid had “failed entirely to consider the issues of grooming and trafficking of a schoolchild in London and of the state’s consequent duties”.
Ms Peirce said: “Strasbourg’s communication presents an unprecedented opportunity for the UK as well as for Ms Begum – to grapple with the significant considerations raised in her case and ignored, sidestepped or violated up to now by previous UK administrations.”
She said it was “impossible to dispute” that Begum was “lured, encouraged and deceived for the purposes of sexual exploitation”.
There was a “catalogue of failures to protect a child known for weeks beforehand to be at high risk when a close friend had disappeared to Syria in an identical way and via an identical route”, she said.
She added: “It would be impossible now not to have real hope of a resolution.”
The Home Office insisted it would “robustly defend” the decision, saying: “The Government will always protect the UK and its citizens.
“That is why Shamima Begum – who posed a national security threat – had her British citizenship revoked and is unable to return to the UK. We will robustly defend any decision made to protect our national security.”
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.
Maybe it would be easier to deport the rest of her family to Bangladesh? From their behaviour (or lack of action), I’d infer they’re in tacit agreement with her radicalism.
Spot on! If that happened more often with the families of terrorists in the West, terrorism would suddenly and inexplicably dwindle down to nothing…
Can she be “un-groomed”? If not, we don’t want her here, nor anyone else who supports Islamist terror groups.
“Ungroomed”—–Can you retrain a hyena to eat salad and not want to rip the guts out of a Wilde Beast?
There’s no such thing as a “legal battle” between a sovereign nation and a foreign court. Political, yes, legal, no.
The nation simply has to say “get stuffed”. What happens next is the interesting part. There may be “sanctions” or there may not. We may “lose face”. The foreign court only really has power if other nation states are prepared to take action to “punish” us.
Excellent points!
This isn’t really a foreign court. It’s a supranational court set up by the member states of the ECHR to adjucate disputes about EHCR-derived rights. It has members from all member states, including Britain. This doesn’t make complying with its judgements any less voluntary for sovereign governments but there’s a qualitative difference: A foreign court would be one existing in the jurisdiction of a foreign government.
Precisely—-But our Political Class are fully aligned with the Foreign Courts.
This and the Egyptian anti-white racist scum. We no longer have a country.
“she was a victim of grooming and trafficking” (I had to put this preposterous assertion in quotes)
I love the moral inversion of presenting this lump of moral vermin – this hater, this promoter of murder for non-Muslims, this believer in slavery for non-Muslims – as a victim. Splendid stuff.
Insofar UK law is considered, she’s right. At 15, even proposing anything sexual to her was child sex abuse. That she most likely wasn’t biologically a child anymore and very voluntarily succumbed to her own sexual desire is of no concern for this, because this law doesn’t take that into account.
In the breathtakingly wonderful multicultural paradise that is my country now, the Begum creature received her religious education from her father and her community. She, her parents, her accomplices, and her community all knew what she was committing herself to when she went to join the islamo-fascists. Keep in mind that the madleft regards the denizens of The Left’s Favourite Religion as morally superior, and that kaffir laws don’t apply to its members.
That’s all nice and dandy, but it’s besides the point. Her ex-husband and/or anybody else who was involved with this while she was still 15 technically committed child sex abuse under UK law back then. Why that would be relevant for her declaration in support of islamic terrorism in the UK years later, when she wasn’t legally a child anymore, is another question. She’s doubtlessly making this claim because a lawyer recommended this and lawyers are concerned with morals because that’s not part of their job.
On the contrary – Begum married under the laws of Islamic State, a territory where the laws of England didn’t apply.
I don’t remember making the completely bizarre claim that UK law would apply to Islamic marriages under the auspices of the ISIS caliphate on the territory of Syria.
Yes, you did appear to be making that claim.
Just that you can think of something which doesn’t make any sense which (to you) doesn’t seem to contradict anything I wrote provided you’re completely ignoring the relevant context (Begum’s claims about being groomed in the UK and trafficked out of it) doesn’t turn what you could think of into a claim I made.
In logic, there’s something fundamental called the principle of charity.
Somewhat simplified, this means before one tries to refute a statements, one needs to try to make sense of it first, ie, construct an interpretation which makes sense and which is then refuted. The principal of discharity — try to come up with an obviously nonsensical interpretation and ascribe that to your opponent — is neither logically nor morally sound.
She was almost 16 when she willingly took herself off to Syria. She may well have turned 16 when she married the violent terrorist who fathered her 3 children. But anyway, she wished to live under Sharia law and that meant she had waived the protections British law gave her.
She was almost 16 when she willingly took herself off to Syria. Which means she wasn’t 16 and hence, any consent she gave for this procedure while still in the UK was legally invalid and the UK authorities had had a duty of care to stop her from travelling. But instead of focussing on this totally uninteresting aside and somehow talk UK law away because clearly, it was (in your opinion) only ever meant to apply to white working class girls from the North instead of … gasp … Muslim girls from London (conjures up images of The Nigel™ who also only believes in his own freedom of speech but not those of others), why not focus on the actual issue? Begum was an adult widow voluntarily living in Syria (that is, she chose not to return to the UK while she still had the chance to) when she publically applauded a gruesome act of islamic terrorism in Manchester and she was stripped of their citizenship because of this. This is an unpleasant issue because it’s really a battle of the bullshitters who try to out-lie each other on all sides. I’m pretty certain the only thing this Muslim ****… Read more »
“Shamima Begum’s lawyers”? Guess who is paying for them?
Her main lawyer is Gareth Pierce, who changed her name from Jean Margaret to “Gareth” for no discernible reason, is well-known for defending Catholic IRA Terrorists and Muslim Terrorists.
“During her career she represented Judith Ward, who had been “wrongfully convicted” in 1974 of several IRA-related bombings, the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, several mineworkers after the Battle of Orgreave, the family of Jean Charles de Menezes and Moazzam Begg, a man held in extrajudicial detention by the American government.”
“In 2015 she was awarded the Presidential Distinguished Service Award by Michael D. Higgins, THE PRESIDENT OF IRELAND.”
Does that mean Distinguished Service to IRA Terrorists, perhaps?
At any rate, you can be sure the Globalists are determined to force Britons to accept the Bangladeshi Beheading-Fancier Begum back to the UK for a lifetime of welfare benefits and her own Talk Show on the BBC…
Begum’s citizenship wasn’t stripped while she was a child but when she was an adult mother voluntarily remaining in Syria who made (among other things) positive statements about the Manchester arena attack.
And she said she wasn’t bothered by the sight of rubbish bins overflowing with decapitated human heads dripping with blood…
While this makes a nice yellow press headline, it’s not a reason to consider her a threat to British national security. There are probably many people in Britain who get sexually aroused by such sights.
Yes, and we know where they live, and who is forced to fund their lifestyle.
Doesn’t mean we need another one.
I will say this immigration from Pakistan and bangladeshistan has been a complete disaster for our country. We cannot mumble about it any longer. The point needs to be made clear. It will make some people uncomfortable. Don’t care.
Add Afghanistan to the list.
It has to stop immediately.
?
I don’t think you know most people who fetishize gore and violence or are funding their lifestyle.
I tend to agree with your other point but would at least add India as well. Generally all people who come here with the intent to form ever expanding colonies (closed settlements) of their own people where as little differs from the countries they left as possible. England cannot remain England when it’s littered with Calcuttas, Karachis and Kabuls. Not all people may be of the opinion that it should remain England but in my opinion, people who move to Europe to complain that it’s so European (and thus, must be decolonized despite it’s the original and not a colony) ought to have stayed where the came from.
Agreed 100% with your second point.
Re funding her weasel lawyers – there’s no shortage of traitorous leftwing legal scum floating in the cess pit of yuman rights law one of them is using his miraculous occupation of number 10 to single mindedly complete the work of destruction of England begun by his puppetmaster the vile Blair creature.
We don’t need to know more.
Shamima Begum was born and bred in this country, and left while she was a minor. Her citizenship was revoked in her absence, and although she was by then an adult, she may well have been living under conditions of coercive control. She also lost three babies in quick succession. Some of her earlier statements are morally repugnant, but if the UK were to allow her to return on compassionate, rather than legal grounds, it would be a wonderful demonstation of Christian values.
Another wonderful example of performative virtue signalling.
Stop, we’re full.
Were I to depart these shores in order to conspire to destroy them I would consider that I had voluntarily surrendered my British citizenship. Which part of that is so hard to understand? At fifteen I was a working, taxpaying, fully sentient British citizen and the notion of beheading innocent people was completely outside of my frame of reference. People capable of such intentions are intrinsically dangerous and remarkably the Home Office is quite right in its judgement in this instance.
By that time, she was living alone in the same camp she’s still living in today.
I sort-of agree with you in one respect: Instead of trying to overturn the decision legally, she should seek a pardon. Unfortunately, the prerogative of mercy in the UK has long since been perverted into another function of the executive instead of something the monarch grants or refuses as he sees fit, based on his own judgment but IMHO, that’s the proper way to handle this situation.
DO NOT PRESUME to lecture us about “Christian values”, weedy wet Liberal helping to subvert and weaken Western civilization!
There is NO PROOF that she ever had three babies that mysteriously all died, or even one baby. It was just another cynical ploy by the narcissistic psychopath to get sympathy from the British People, who are known worldwide for their compassion, like all Ethnic Europeans are, in contrast to most of the Third World.
She only posed for photographs while holding a bundle of cloth, claiming it was a baby, claiming the others had died, and showed not the slightest sadness or empathy about them at all, or gave them any names, or worried about raising them around rubbish bins full of decapitated human heads. And how could three die, unless she smothered them or refused to feed them, because she didn’t want them? I don’t believe a word she says.
Never before in my 71 years on this planet have I been described as a “weedy wet liberal helping to subvert and weaken Western civilization”. Thank you for making all the family laugh. Happy new year.
“In 2015 she was awarded the Presidential Distinguished Service Award by Michael D. Higgins, THE PRESIDENT OF IRELAND.” – not really one to shout about, is it?
But it says a lot about HIM…
Let her in, and house her in one of those asylum hotels. Plenty of Afghan males to keep her company.
We can all remember the news film of her and her two friends taking themselves off to Syria to join ISIS. There was no coercion, “grooming” or trafficking involved; they were having quite the little adventure.
Of course, if the ECHR decides that she should come back to the UK, Two-Tier will accept it. And that will seal Labour’s fate and will ensure that the ECHR and the HRA will be scrapped.
I can see this nasty piece of work getting back into the UK, given everything and the public going berserk over it. We are allowing International Treaties and Courts to decide who gets to come to this country instead of our own Parliament. ——Mind you most of the Parliament are fully aligned with the globalist agenda anyway. We are governed by quislings
It’s entirely up to the government of the UK how to implement an eventual court ruling should it ever happen and should it be in favour of her and against the fake national security concerns of Savid Jabbid. This includes ignoring it completely. The worst possible sanction against this is that the committee of ministers of the Council of Europe may ‘ask’ the UK to withdraw from this council if it deems that the action of the government of the UK constitute a serious violation of Chapter II. Article 3 of the statute and in case the British government doesn’t comply, Britain might be formally expelled.
The Starmer-government will certainly not do that but that’s a different question.
Dear Lord, with all that is happening with the current gov’t how is it possible to spend a nanosecond on this woman?