Nope.
Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
So is it that you feel the Syrian Justice System would be fairer or the the evidence exists in Syria or both?
I think it's more to do with the fact that the crime was committed on Syrian territory.
But you did mention Shamima being treated fairly so are you saying that Syrian Justice will be fairer?
Would life be any easier for her back in Britain?
I don't know if it is a question of being easier. In any case I'm seeking a bit of clarity on why one will be fairer than another.
At the same time will she be the only one to face trial and does Syria have the infrastructure to deal with all of the former family and fighters?
There’s no justice in Syria. Assad is a monster whose idea of ‘justice’ will be revenge over the coming months and years. The SDF who are currently holding her have a better reputation in the West but are not recognized, are a battle-hardened militia with more battles ahead of them, and probably don’t have the capability or the desire to conduct proper trials for the thousands of ISIS captives currently in their hands.
Syria doesn't want them.
It is fair to stand trial in the country where the crime was committed.
Kind of a strong indication that Shamima would be treated more fairly if not in Britain then certainly in the West.
Would you hold the same position if Singapore for instance want to hang a British national for smuggling, say, 10 pounds of cocaine? Or Saudi Arabia doing the same with a blasphemer?
Your answers seem contradictory then to your supposed fact. I can't see any proposed 'fairness' in being tried in Syria and particularly with reference to @2cents post above.
I’d say that’s a certainty.
It would be easier for her to get luxury amenities like toiletries and comfort food. There's a very good chance she'll be ostracised by not only the wider Muslim community but also wider members of her family (excluding siblings and parents).
Well I'm just glad that with your approval I won't be accused of stretching there.
Which one was my "supposed fact"?
I believe it was this one which I suggested wasn't a great idea or some such.
Thanks for confirming that it wasn’t a slip of the tongue.
Nice.Well I'm just glad that with your approval I won't be accused of stretching there.
You can still accuse people of saying she shouldn't face British justice, and when you're challenged to provide the post where this happened, you can just stop responding.
I tend to respond to when I'm quoted unless they become confusing or a waste of time but I'll answer you this once to be polite.Nice.
You can still accuse people of saying she shouldn't face British justice, and when you're challenged to provide the post where this happened, you can just stop responding.
Why do you think 90% of those returning from Syria weren't prosecuted? Don't you think at least some of them would be responsible for crimes committed?
Why do you think Shamima will be fairly treated if she is tried in Syria or in Britain if 90% of those returning weren't prosecuted?
Yes in the first and no in the second.
Because there's a high probability that she will walk free and never answer for her actions. Because it is hard to evidence someone's activities abroad and because there's no adequate legislation.
Now, can you answer my question?
Well so long as you can't see any inequality in your answer by all means.
I think the Home Office had procedures in place with a foreword especially from the Minister to deal with returnees which we can not be sure is being operated.
Last edited:
But still not to the post asking you to back up the assumption you made. Nice one!I tend to respond to when I'm quoted unless they become confusing or a waste of time but I'll answer you this once to be polite.
I've no idea what you are on about. Perhaps you've misunderstood something.But still not to the post asking you to back up the assumption you made. Nice one!
Convenient, that. Think back to when you abruptly and inexplicably stopped responding to me. When I asked you to clarify your assumption and you decided, after realizing your mistake, that that was the time to end the conversation.I've no idea what you are on about. Perhaps you've misunderstood something.
Yeah, after you'd called me a prick there couldn't be another reason why I ignored you? Sweet. I think you've misunderstood definitely.Convenient, that. Think back to when you abruptly and inexplicably stopped responding to me. When I asked you to clarify your assumption and you decided, after realizing your mistake, that that was the time to end the conversation.
I've never used the Ignore feature but I'm thinking there might be a use for it. Perhaps we could just ignore each other eh? And stop taking the thread off topic?
You're not very good at this
Yup! You continued to reply well after that so don't try to pretend your convenient decision to end the conversation there had anything to do with that. And still you haven't found the post? Shocking.Yeah, after you'd called me a prick there couldn't be another reason why I ignored you? Sweet. I think you've misunderstood definitely.
I've never used the Ignore feature but I'm thinking there might be a use for it. Perhaps we could just ignore each other eh? And stop taking the thread off topic?
Hilarious! You make yet another snidey comment about our exchange and now you want to forget it?
Are you in control of what you're writing?I realise its important for people to back their stance on the matter but there's absolutely no fecking need for all the snide backhand comments.
@Mozza has his points, if you can't at least acknowledge them while you make your refutal then it doesn't bode well for the objectivity of your own argument.
Most of which have been dogshit quality by the way, other than the few members who qualify their points with actual historical knowledge.
Most of which have been dogshit quality by the way, other than the few members who qualify their points with actual historical knowledge.
Yeah, after you'd called me a prick there couldn't be another reason why I ignored you? Sweet. I think you've misunderstood definitely.
I've never used the Ignore feature but I'm thinking there might be a use for it. Perhaps we could just ignore each other eh? And stop taking the thread off topic?
Ignore him, @oates , you wont be missing out on much.
I was wondering what actual crimes she has allegedly committed? It also strikes me that contries like Australia and the UK who are making people stateless on the pretense they have another nationality - usually a theoretical entitlement through descent - are acting illegally.
I know we all want to minimise the number of cnuts in our countries but surely the rule of law is more important?
It's my thinking too. I can't help feeling that all we know so far is what this girl has said. That she wanted to join this terrible organisation, to marry a fighter and have children. That this alone is against our laws and damning enough but that there's this temptation to attempt to divine the possibilities and probabilities that she did even worse. In a way she seems to be the sole or maybe one of a few so far to earn our ire and crushing despite.
My thoughts are that she is being made a scapegoat at present and until we know there is evidence of more there's a terrible desire in some of us to punish her enough for all of the ones who went to join. While there are up to 400 who have returned to the UK it's almost vicious in the outcry to judge her and risks something none of us would want by making her into a martyr.
Sajid Javid stood up in the House of Commons and declared that out of those who have returned only a few are of low risk and the rest of none. Makes me wonder how he can be so sure but doesn't inform us when or even if these returnees would face British Justice, or what that could be but with the current attempt to deny Begum her citizenship perhaps that is one available option but to my mind that would be passing our issues off, lumping them on some other country.
Seems that one Lord Goldsmith proposed a "thorough reform and rationalisation of the law" of treason about 11 years ago. Seems like someone should have listened to him back then because joining a terrorist organization that fights your own country is very treasonous.
I believe that supporting terrorists is the same as being a terrorist. I believe that this girl poses at least some kind of danger, at the very least we know how she will raise her child and what beliefs she will instil in it. And my honest feeling is that I dont want her here. I think she made her bed, and she should lie it. That being said the more I think about it, the more I cant help but think that she needs to be allowed back. Not for her sake, but for ours. A justice system that treats the wicked fairly and without contempt is needed if the innocent are to have any shot at justice. So while this girl might have done the very worst things a person can do, she needs to be held to account by due process and not by mob rule or to gain public favour.
Someone else mentioned that there maybe no laws that she has broken and there may be some new ones being written just for this situation and to hit her with. I cant believe that that should be allowed. Those that write these laws should have done so when she and others left. Not write them now for public favour and to seek retroactive action against people. I shudder to think where that would end.
This would be great if our justice system treated the wicked fairly but it doesn’t. Trust me I know, my family has been on the receiving end of some horrendous British “justice” (as victims,not criminals I might add). I have no faith in it whatsoever. That’s why I’m more inclined to leave her to rot where she is.
It isn't the same thing at all. Not that supporting terrorism is good but the person who puts 5 bucks in a bucket at a NORAID fund raiser in NY may morally have blood on their hands but that is a whole different thing than pulling the trigger that were indirectly funded by the $5. Part of the problem -yes. Exactly the same - no.
And if she has broken the law then a fair and open trial in the UK will show how a democracy deals with things. Making people stateless to stop it being our problem isn't legally or morally supportable imo.