To argue that Shamima Begum should be returned to Britain and given back her citizenship is to arouse the fury of all those – and there are many – who see the 26-year-old outcast as the embodiment of all that is evil.
In their eyes, Britain was right to strip this terrorist sympathiser of her passport and wash its hands of her completely. Begum, who is currently languishing in a Syrian refugee camp, made her bed, they say, and must now lie in it.
Having seen her attempts to come home rebuffed by our domestic courts, Begum’s case is set to be considered by European judges. I am no great fan of foreign intervention in our nation’s internal affairs, but it seems clear to me that there is an overwhelming case, in principle, for bringing Begum back.
I do not, of course, seek to downplay the seriousness of Begum’s alleged crimes. In 2015, she travelled from her home in east London to Syria, joined the Islamic State and married one of the group’s fighters.
By any standard, these are deplorable actions which would rightly trouble State authorities. But are they enough to dictate that Begum’s citizenship be removed and that she never be permitted to set foot within our shores again? I do not believe so.
First, we must remember that Begum was 15 – a child – when she hooked up with the militants in Syria. It is widely accepted that she had been groomed and radicalised online.
We are understandably very quick to recognise that white teenage girls who suffered at the hands of Pakistani-Muslim groomers were genuine victims. So why not Begum?
Second, what right does Britain have to offload its bad apples to another country? Why should the Syrian people – who, God knows, have enough hoodlums in their own ranks – be expected to deal with Begum, potentially for the rest of her life? Begum was born, raised and educated in Britain. She is a product of our nation, whether we like it or not, and is therefore our problem, not Syria’s.
Third, do we still believe in due process? Begum stands accused of serious crimes. The correct course would be to bring her back to Britain, place her in front of a criminal court, and, if she is found guilty, punish her. So far, her defence to the charges against her has never been considered by a jury of her peers.
Until that happens, we should be slow to reach a judgement on her degree of culpability or the extent of her “evil”. Everyone should, after all, have the right to a fair trial.
We need to stop lying to ourselves about the Shamima Begum problem. It's not going away - Paul Embery
|BBC
Fourth, no government should have the power to strip a person of his or her citizenship. Like millions of us, Begum was born a British citizen. Citizenship is – or should be – something that is innate and immutable.
To be born a citizen of a country is like being born into a family. Nobody – and certainly not a here-today-gone-tomorrow Home Secretary – should have the right to terminate that intrinsic relationship against the will of the individual.
Those who think otherwise might wish to ponder where their argument might lead. One day, a government may come to office which wilfully abuses its power to revoke citizenship and chooses to target all those, including legitimate political opponents, whom it considers to be “enemies of the State”. In short, be careful what you wish for.
Fifth, the power to revoke citizenship can, as things stand, only be exercised in a way that is fundamentally racist. Yes, I know the “racist” charge is tossed around far too casually these days, but in this case, it is appropriate.
That’s because, with international law decreeing that an individual should not be left stateless, only those with dual nationality may have their citizenship revoked. So somebody like me, the son of two parents born in these islands and possessing only a British passport, could not have his citizenship stripped.
But another citizen, who may also have been born in Britain and lived here perhaps even longer than I have, would be liable to have their passport removed on the grounds that one parent had been born abroad and thus they hold dual nationality.
Such a policy gives rise to a two-tier system of citizenship, which inevitably means that British citizens with a migrant parent are at risk of being treated less favourably than the rest of us. I cannot see how it is possible to defend such an outcome.
Moreover, in Begum’s case, the other country involved – Bangladesh – has stated that it does not want her, hence she remains holed up in Syria.
Sixth, there is plainly a case for clemency. Since arriving in Syria, Begum has given birth to three children, all of whom died in infancy – a deeply traumatic experience for any young mother, let alone one unsupported by family and friends, to go through.
She continues to live, stateless and unwanted, in a refugee camp, with little hope of ever finding a nation willing to take her in.
It isn’t “soft” to believe that Begum should be brought back to this country, handed back her passport and put through our criminal justice system.
I believe in tough justice as much as the next person and, like millions of my fellow Britons, I am angered when offenders get off lightly after committing serious crimes.
In fact, I am tempted to believe that politicians take a hard line on high-profile cases such as Begum’s in an effort to convince us that the justice system is a lot more severe than it actually is.
At any rate, the lack of mercy and respect for due process shown in the case of Shamima Begum compels me to speak up. I realise that the campaign to bring her home does not enjoy widespread support. But it is no less right for that.
Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter
More From GB News