A stain yes, but on our government?
The home secretary, Sajid Javid, has come under fire for his decision to revoke the British citizenship of Shamima Begum, whose baby son has died in a Syrian refugee camp.
Begum, 19, left the UK in 2015 with two school friends to join Islamic State in Syria and said last month she wanted to return home. But Javid insisted he would do all in his power to prevent her coming back and ordered her citizenship to be revoked.
Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, said the death of Begum’s baby, Jarrah, who was buried in a refugee camp on Friday, was a “stain on the conscience of this government”.
Bollocks. Seriously, bollocks on stilts. Actions have consequences. Begum made a conscious decision and she – as well has the three children she gave birth to – have suffered the consequences of her choices. It has nothing to do with us, or our government. We – and our government owe this woman nothing. She, and she alone is responsible here. But, typical of the Abbopotomus to take the side of a traitor.
I visit blogs that are a lot more left and bleeding heart than this one, even there you will find very little sympathy for Shamima and her offspring. Even those who see the kid as an innocent victim of his circumstances recognise that he would have grown up as our enemy.
ABBOPOTAMUS: A large, thick-skinned aggressive beast that inhabits watering holes, keeping company with other creatures of poor taste. When agitated, is prone to spraying shit in all directions. Best avoided.
Also known as the Hackney Hippo.
Had she stayed with her family in Britain, Begum would have faced one choice: an arranged marriage, negotiated by her parents for maximum influence, or financial gain.
A good Muslim girl who is moderately well educated with a British passport is an attractive proposition in Bangladesh.
She would have had no say in who was chosen – and that applied equally to her two friends who went there with her. Sixteen is the minimum age for marriage in England providing parents concent.
By doing as she did, she gave two fingers to her family and she was able to chose her husband.
By staying with in the ISIS “caliphate” she was surrounded by like individuals; women doing as she did, provide for their fighters. Also her only other outdoor activity was listening to radical clerics spouting the new world order.
Hence Begum genuinely believes in ISIS and their legitimacy. And any one who does not agree with that orthodoxy is a legitimate target.
What she and her husband did was in Syria. ISIS fully intended to annex whole areas for themselves. So they must first answer to the Syrian authorities for crimes committed on their soil. Illegal entry is for starters.
No one gave a toss about kiddy one or two. And no one would have done so about this one were it not for an opportunistic reporter, who played her like a cheap fiddle.
Abbott is wrong on every level. British public opinion is overwhelmingly in support of her remaining in Syria together with her husband to answer to their authorities.
Nor does Britain have an obligation to support every British passport holder. Certainly not if they’re a loaded weapon and only after the Syrians have done their bit.
Both her mother and her father are Bangladeshi so unless they became naturalised citizens and renounced their Bangladeshi citizenship, she is NOT British and even then, she can claim dual citizenship based on her parents nationality.
Simply because she was born in Britain does not make her British and her complete rejection of the mores and values of Britain puts her even further beyond the pale.
I can understand Bangladesh not wanting to import fanatical terrorists that want to impose a radical Islamist ideology on the country but it is NOT Britains problem.
Let her rot in a Syrian jail or let them (quietly) execute her for war crimes.
Am I the only one who thinks it’s a bit peculiar that all three of this girl’s children have died – the first two, supposedly, of “malnutrition” and this last one of goodness knows what. Now, I’m no expert on the situation in Syria, and I’m sure that with all the problems there, they’re not good – but to my knowledge famine and starvation isn’t (yet) a problem there. For sure, I’d guess that easily getting lots of good quality food at a local supermarket isn’t an option, and I’m sure that food, like medication and other essentials, are in short supply, but for all its difficulties, I think that the vast majority of people in Syria are at least managing to feed themselves and their kids. Ditto in the refugee camps. No doubt if there were young babies and children dying every day there, we’d have heard about it by now through the hand-wringing likes of the Guardian and countless begging adverts, fronted by celebs on the TV. There’s been a few, of course, but nothing like on the scale of past major famines and disease outbreaks in other countries over the years. To lose one baby in a volatile situation like Syria (or a refugee camp) may be something that tragically happens to some parents, but three???
I think you will find that there are babies dying frequently out there. The conditions aren’t exactly conducive. However, this particular case is nicely high profile and can be used as a stick to beat the eeeevil Tories with. This is pure political opportunism and it’s sickening.
All Three Infants from isis woman’s womb die – God (Allah) sending a message?
UK or Javid to blame? No
Karma?
btw MSM: “fled UK” – No she didn’t, she left UK to fight with terrorist murderers
How about Abbot staying in Syria?
Every time Abbott opens her big fat mouth she loses more votes for the Labour party. She should be encouraged to be quoted on every issue as she is always on the wrong side of every argument. She could even be a double-agent for the Tories as her views are so ridiculous.
No respect for International Law here then I see. Also seem quite happy to leave our homegrown criminals for someone else to deal with. She IS British. She IS our problem to deal with. Public opinion can go fuck itself on this we are talking about legal responsibility here and most public opinion on this is borne out of ignorance and not just a little racism. Why should Bangladesh or Holland or any other country have to deal with her? And how would we all like it when other countries start saying actually, we can’t be arsed to deal with these terrorists let’s just send them to the UK. If, and it’s a big IF, Syria wish to take proceedings against her then all very well but if not then it’s us who should bring her back and put her on trial for joining a proscribed organisation. If we had taken our responsibilities on this seriously she would have already been back here and her kid taken into care and then maybe given to a family that would have brought it up as a decent, caring human being and it almost certainly would not be dead. Try and remember that this was about the innocent child, not the sad sack of a mother.
I’m sure the parents of the dead children blown up by these terrorist scum in Manchester are not bothered by international law. Let her rot as an example to others.
You could argue that the UK has a responsibility to clear up its own mess and that argument has some validity. What you cannot argue is that the Home Secretary is responsible for the fate of the child. The only person who has that responsibility is his mother whose actions directly led to his being in a refugee camp. No one else has any responsibility here whatsoever.
As far as legality is concerned, I am getting mixed reports on her citizenship status. If she does have dual citizenship, then Javid has not broken the law. You might want to argue a moral case for us bringing her back and prosecuting her, but you cannot argue a legal one. However, having brought her back, how will you then manage the risk she poses – bearing in mind that she has been radicalised to hate everything we stand for and eschews western values? Because another Manchester or Westminster either caused by her or someone she has radicalised is a very foreseeable risk. You can’t just lock her up as we have habeas corpus in this country and denying it to her would be setting a very dangerous precedent. You can’t use the mental health act because so far as I am aware, she shows no sign of mental illness.
That said, my comments weren’t really about this, it was the suggestion that the death of the child was the responsibility of the Home Secretary. It wasn’t.