Shamima Begum...
Discussion
Algarve said:
Fair enough we don't know that, but we do know she got married when she was 15.
I assume the people wanting her sent to holland would be perfectly happy with some of the rochdale grooming gang taking victims out the country then marrying them, you'd still say yes those marriages are legitimate?
Didn't think so. The hypocrisy floating around is staggering
Not sure of the comparison here. We are regularly told the groomers were British so her moving to country of her late husband doesn’t compare with a British man abusing a British girl in Britain.I assume the people wanting her sent to holland would be perfectly happy with some of the rochdale grooming gang taking victims out the country then marrying them, you'd still say yes those marriages are legitimate?
Didn't think so. The hypocrisy floating around is staggering
I don’t know why Holland would want her.
Comparing the horrific abuse that the girls sufferd in the uk with some people that went to live their life in accordance with their perfect religion is hardly fair.
People of all nationalities and ages went to live in Syria with isis. Thousands went yet this woman and her friends were groomed ??
Algarve said:
Rare said:
They can in Syria, the country where she chose to live. We have no idea how old she was when her and her husband first had sex.
Fair enough we don't know that, but we do know she got married when she was 15.I assume the people wanting her sent to holland would be perfectly happy with some of the rochdale grooming gang taking victims out the country then marrying them, you'd still say yes those marriages are legitimate?
M
Didn't think so. The hypocrisy floating around is staggering
No one forced her to leave the United Kingdom, and she willingly gave herself to be married at an age in her adopted State of ISIL where it was perfectly legal, and normal, to be married and have children.
For someone to say that seeing beheadings each day didnt "bother" them shows how far from being normal she is.
She would be a drain on society and a constant danger to it if she ever came back here.
Her new home is where she is now, let her live there we dont need another jihadi promoting islamic terrorism here. Crying for her I am not.
She would be a drain on society and a constant danger to it if she ever came back here.
Her new home is where she is now, let her live there we dont need another jihadi promoting islamic terrorism here. Crying for her I am not.
McGee_22 said:
Of her own free will she rejected the Laws, Culture and Citizenship of Great Britain where the age of consent is 16, and wholly embraced, committed herself to and became a Citizen of ISIL where 'women' can be married at the age of nine. She was over 18 when still committed to and supporting in mind and material her adopted State of ISIL.
No one forced her to leave the United Kingdom, and she willingly gave herself to be married at an age in her adopted State of ISIL where it was perfectly legal, and normal, to be married and have children.
You really do mean a 'state' that is recognised by literally not a single member of the UN - even fewer than the Turkish Republic of Cyprus, for example? With as much legal standing as Sealand? Even the weasels in the Home Office don't believe this - they are (ab)using a legal process to attempt to foist her on Bangladesh, despite her having expressed no interest in or loyalty to that country.No one forced her to leave the United Kingdom, and she willingly gave herself to be married at an age in her adopted State of ISIL where it was perfectly legal, and normal, to be married and have children.
I understand they don't want her back here, but they equally do not want to deal with the blowback of seeing her captured, raped, otherwise tortured and murdered by Assad's thugs and they are trying to bounce Bangladesh into taking her in because they calculate that the government there won't dare risk dealing with the inevitable PR backlash should she be captured and abused by Assad's forces.
In some ways, I'd have more respect if HMG simply said to the Kurdish rebels that, so far as it was concerned, the Assad regime was the internationally recognised government of Syria that had competence to deal with ISIS detainees. She should therefore face the Syrian judicial process but HMG would, if it could, offer consular assistance, as it would to any other citizen who found themselves in hot water in another country. In other words HMG could have simply decided to leave her to her fate rather than signalling that it was prepared to play silly buggers with its internationals relations and the notion of security of UK citizenship.
psi310398 said:
they are (ab)using a legal process to attempt to foist her on Bangladesh, despite her having expressed no interest in or loyalty to that country.
She's expressed no interest in or loyalty to UK either. The difference is that she's legally entitled to citizenship in Bangladesh but not here.Agammemnon said:
She's expressed no interest in or loyalty to UK either. The difference is that she's legally entitled to citizenship in Bangladesh but not here.
Only because someone born as a UK citizen - this is her birthright - had it stripped away by a vindictive law.Are we similarly going to do the same to second generation Jewish people (on the basis that they are automatically entitled to Israeli nationality) or Windrush descendants, if they do something the Home Secretary decides she doesn't approve of?
psi310398 said:
Only because someone born as a UK citizen - this is her birthright - had it stripped away by a vindictive law.
Are we similarly going to do the same to second generation Jewish people (on the basis that they are automatically entitled to Israeli nationality) or Windrush descendants, if they do something the Home Secretary decides she doesn't approve of?
She stripped it away herself. Stop trying to force the child to do what she doesn’t want to. Sounds rather vindictive, respect her right to decide for herself.Are we similarly going to do the same to second generation Jewish people (on the basis that they are automatically entitled to Israeli nationality) or Windrush descendants, if they do something the Home Secretary decides she doesn't approve of?
Algarve said:
Fair enough we don't know that, but we do know she got married when she was 15.
I assume the people wanting her sent to holland would be perfectly happy with some of the rochdale grooming gang taking victims out the country then marrying them, you'd still say yes those marriages are legitimate?
Didn't think so. The hypocrisy floating around is staggering
I doubt Shamima was being plied with drugs and alcohol when she made her decision to commit treason.I assume the people wanting her sent to holland would be perfectly happy with some of the rochdale grooming gang taking victims out the country then marrying them, you'd still say yes those marriages are legitimate?
Didn't think so. The hypocrisy floating around is staggering
psi310398 said:
Agammemnon said:
She's expressed no interest in or loyalty to UK either. The difference is that she's legally entitled to citizenship in Bangladesh but not here.
Only because someone born as a UK citizen - this is her birthright - had it stripped away by a vindictive law.Are we similarly going to do the same to second generation Jewish people (on the basis that they are automatically entitled to Israeli nationality) or Windrush descendants, if they do something the Home Secretary decides she doesn't approve of?
Agammemnon said:
psi310398 said:
Agammemnon said:
She's expressed no interest in or loyalty to UK either. The difference is that she's legally entitled to citizenship in Bangladesh but not here.
Only because someone born as a UK citizen - this is her birthright - had it stripped away by a vindictive law.Are we similarly going to do the same to second generation Jewish people (on the basis that they are automatically entitled to Israeli nationality) or Windrush descendants, if they do something the Home Secretary decides she doesn't approve of?
But it is the law ....
Rare said:
When the law said we have to take her back many people were keen to point this out, she was our problem etc. They are now all upset as the law appears to suggest we don’t.
But it is the law ....
I guess it'll rumble on for years. We can't leave her stateless and Bangladesh are openly saying she's not their problem... one of us is going to need to fold.But it is the law ....
Algarve said:
Rare said:
When the law said we have to take her back many people were keen to point this out, she was our problem etc. They are now all upset as the law appears to suggest we don’t.
But it is the law ....
I guess it'll rumble on for years. We can't leave her stateless and Bangladesh are openly saying she's not their problem... one of us is going to need to fold.But it is the law ....
Agammemnon said:
Algarve said:
Bangladesh are openly saying she's not their problem....
Their legal system says differently.Algarve said:
Rare said:
When the law said we have to take her back many people were keen to point this out, she was our problem etc. They are now all upset as the law appears to suggest we don’t.
But it is the law ....
I guess it'll rumble on for years. We can't leave her stateless and Bangladesh are openly saying she's not their problem... one of us is going to need to fold.But it is the law ....
Starfighter said:
Agammemnon said:
Algarve said:
Bangladesh are openly saying she's not their problem....
Their legal system says differently.Starfighter said:
Agammemnon said:
Algarve said:
Bangladesh are openly saying she's not their problem....
Their legal system says differently.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff