SHAMIMA BEGUM
Should a notorious IS bride be allowed to return to Britain?
Can there ever be redemption for Shamima Begum? She gained notoriety at the age of 15 when, together with two teenage school friends, she left London and clandestinely travelled to Syria, via Turkey, where she joined the Islamic State (IS) terrorist organisation. She was one of over 1,000 Britons who joined IS. It seems that she had been groomed online and smuggled into Syria by an IS agent named Mohammed al-Rasheed, who turned out to be working for Canadian Intelligence. Within ten days of arriving in Syria, Begum had married a Dutch IS terrorist, who had converted to Islam. There are allegations that she became a tough enforcer as a member of the IS morality police, patrolling the streets of IS-held towns, cities and encampments, compelling women and girls to wear the hijab and obey strict Islamic Sharia laws and customs. After the defeat of Islamic State by coalition forces in Iraq and Syria, in February 2019, Begum was found living in the al-Hawl refugee camp in Northern Syria. When the news broke, Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary at the time, revoked her British citizenship, saying she would never be allowed to return to Britain.
Shamima Begum has been trapped in the refugee camp ever since and, as a stateless person unable to travel, could die in Syria. As both her parents were immigrants to the UK from Bangladesh, it has been argued that she could return there. But the Bangladesh government has said she will never be allowed to enter. Having married a Dutch citizen, some have argued that she could seek Dutch citizenship. But because she was married at the age of 15, illegal in the Netherlands, her marriage status cannot be recognised. So, her legal team has fought a series of battles through the British courts to try to restore her citizenship and facilitate her return to the UK. In July 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that she should be permitted to come to Britain to contest the Home Secretary’s revocation of her passport in an open court. The UK government appealed to the Supreme Court which, in February 2021, ruled against her, reversing the Court of Appeal’s decision.
In February 2020, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that Javid's decision to revoke Begum's British citizenship had been lawful, on grounds of national security. ShamimaBegum appealed this decision and, in another court, hearing last month, the Lady Chief Justice Dame Sue Carr, ruled that Sajid Javid’s decision had indeed been lawful. In a poignant statement the judge said: “It could be argued that the decision in Ms Begum’s case was harsh. It could also be argued that Ms Begum is the author of her own misfortune. But it is not for this court to agree or disagree with either point of view. Our only task is to rule on whether the decision was unlawful.”
In a recent development, it has come to light that there are around 20 other women, most of whom were IS-brides, and 40 children from Britain, trapped in refugee camps in the Middle East, raising complex questions about responsibility, justice, and the possibility of redemption for individuals who were caught up in extremist ideologies. While there may be sympathy for those who were young and vulnerable when they were recruited into IS, there is also a need to send a clear message about the consequences of supporting terrorist organizations.
The Begum case has distinct echoes of the revolutionary fervour of the 1960s, when millions of teenagers in the West had posters of Che Guevara on their walls, despite the knowledge that he was a bloodthirsty killer. The lure of bearded, revolutionary warriors, savagely butchering perceived enemies of Sunni Islam, as they carved their way across the Middle East, clearly held an enticing fascination for the adolescent Shamima Begum and her friends. It was a dream that quickly turned into a nightmare, as one of her friends was killed in a bombing raid and another disappeared. Shamima herself gave birth to three babies, all of whom died, in what must surely have been distressing and almost unendurable circumstances.
Nevertheless, in many TV and media interviews she has given since her re-emergence in Syria, Shamima Begum has at times been characterized as slippery and manipulative, initially appearing in a Muslim full hijab costume and telling journalists that she was “OK” with IS terrorists beheading innocent civilians. Now, at the age of 24, she dresses in stylish modern western clothing, with makeup, jewellery, designer sunglasses and nail polish, perplexingly appearing to downplay her strict adherence to radical Islam as an IS-bride and giving rise to genuine concerns that allowing her and others like her to return home could pose a threat to public safety.
The story of Shamima Begum’s radicalization and subsequent actions have sparked debate and controversy around issues of terrorism, national security, and rehabilitation. The infamous November 2019 London Bridge terror attack by Usman Khan, which claimed the lives of two, young Ministry of Justice counsellors, serves as a stark reminder that individuals with extremist backgrounds may attempt to deceive authorities and present a reformed image while harbouring dangerous intentions. Khan was a convicted terrorist who claimed to have reformed and was taking part in a prisoner rehabilitation event in Fishmonger’s Hall. Armed with two knives, Khan stabbed Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones to death before being chased by another prisoner using a narwhal tusk and finally shot dead by the Metropolitan Police. The Khan case raises questions about the devastating consequences that can occur when convicted terrorists are allowed back into society without proper assessment and monitoring.
Of course, Shamima Begum has never been convicted of terrorism or any other offence. She has admitted that she joined IS knowing it was a proscribed terrorist organisation. She has also said that she was “ashamed” to have joined the group and regrets it. Maybe she should be brought back to Britain to face trial and punishment for her role in IS. A period of imprisonment combined with careful expert assessment, monitoring and evaluation, would surely determine if and when she could be released back into society. The delicate balance between justice, mercy, and security requires thoughtful consideration and a comprehensive approach to addressing the complex challenges posed by individuals like Shamima Begum and other IS brides. It is essential to balance compassion and understanding with a firm commitment to protecting the safety and security of all citizens.
