Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

ISIS "Bride"

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

ISIS "Bride"

Old 17th Jul 2020, 16:52
  #601 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 390
It seems pretty clear from the way she has acted that she's resourceful, cunning and far from stupid. Just getting out of the UK at 15 years of age and organising her travel across Europe to get out there took a fair bit of commitment and organisation, even if she was aided and abetted by others. I don't doubt that she has been trying hard to manage things to further the cause she is so wedded to, and that may well now be to work for IS, or one of its splinter groups, within the UK.

Personally I don't buy her story as to why she wants to come back to the UK at all, she comes across as someone who is trying to manipulate the media, the law etc, and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that she is being carefully coached. I believe these terrorists are very adept at using things like the law to further their cause, but that's not a reason for us just choosing to ignore our own laws, on the basis of nothing more than suspicion.

As to whether she is more of a risk whilst anywhere in the world other than the UK, or if she'd be more of a risk if allowed into the UK, I'm inclined to think that it's always better to have people like this inside the tent, where they can at least be tracked and monitored. The chances of the international community being able to keep track of her if she's not allowed back to the UK seems pretty slim, my guess is that she'd disappear into one or other of the offshoots of IS and end up remaining a serious risk for years.

Her case may result in changes to the way that we handle people like her in future, though, perhaps with changes to the law to close off the apparent loophole she's used. I still believe we need to be damned careful to not allow anyone to be found guilty of a crime, and punished for it, without a fair trial. Just reviewing evidence from what is effectively the prosecution, allowing no form of defence evidence to be heard and then the Home Secretary making a judgement and passing sentence, seems to be a power that should only be used under the most extreme circumstances. From what has been officially reported, she's done little more than join a proscribed organisation, so although I suspect she may well have done far more than this, right now the full extent of her alleged crimes has not been made public, AFAIK.
VP959 is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 08:07
  #602 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4DME
Posts: 2,007
Looks like she's pulled it off and is coming back for trial, remanded we hope.
N707ZS is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 08:16
  #603 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: God's Country
Posts: 123
Originally Posted by Vat is Jetstream View Post
She was a child when she went. I do not.
Ms Begum is older than Greta Thunberg. Yet Ms Thunberg is not in anyway referred to as a child.

The Nip is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 09:09
  #604 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 751
Demonstrating to all and sundry that you can have your cake and eat it too?

Break the law, turn your back on your country, go to Syria, express no regret or remorse when given the opportunity, and then demand reversal of any punishment threatened or mandated. Make the impossible possible, leaning on the goodwill of the few.

jolihokistix is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 09:42
  #605 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,071
I can't see why being physically present for a citizenship hearing matters in her case. Begum has made no attempt to explain her move to Syria that would indicate a temporary loss of sanity or judgment, she is happy that she went to join ISIS and has made no attempt to persuade anyone that she is anything other than a terrorist who supports the aims of ISIS. The lawyers who have put her up to this are a disgrace to their profession and I believe the judges haven't made their case, all the reasons for removing her citizenship remain as valid today as they were when they were made and she makes no effort to offer an acceptable defence, so her presence at a hearing is irrelevant.
parabellum is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 10:09
  #606 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
As to whether she is more of a risk whilst anywhere in the world other than the UK, or if she'd be more of a risk if allowed into the UK, I'm inclined to think that it's always better to have people like this inside the tent, where they can at least be tracked and monitored.
As Sun Tzu said: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer".

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 10:16
  #607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by parabellum View Post
I can't see why being physically present for a citizenship hearing matters in her case.
Her problem is not one of being physically present for the hearing, it is that she cannot adequately instruct a solicitor with the guaranteed confidentiality required by the law.

I appreciate that many on here have a contempt for our laws, but some of us kinda believe that's what makes the UK what we are. If you don't like it I suggest they emigrate to nations more aligned their your own amoral beliefs (to the mutual benefit of both countries).

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 10:27
  #608 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: heathrow
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by PDR1 View Post
I appreciate that many on here have a contempt for our laws, but some of us kinda believe that's what makes the UK what we are. If you don't like it I suggest they emigrate to nations more aligned their your own amoral beliefs (to the mutual benefit of both countries).

PDR
I have no contempt for the laws in the UK, simply contempt for people who abuse those laws and travel overseas to join up with a terrorist organisation whose aims including murdering innocent men, women and children.
Watching the interviews that this person has given, I didn't see any remorse or sorrow for what she had done, only remorse that she had been found and locked up so I see no reason whatsoever to let her back into the country that she chose to abandon, especially as once back then whatever the outcome of the hearing into her citizenship, there is next to no chance that she will ever leave the UK (unless it's to assist ISIS again).
That's why I don't think that she should come here for the trial. If the human rights lawyers are so concerned, why don't they travel to the camp in Syria to give legal advice and allow the case to be held remotely?

If, in your opinion that makes me amoral, I'm more than happy to be labelled as such.
747 jock is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 10:29
  #609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: God's Country
Posts: 123
Originally Posted by PDR1 View Post
I appreciate that many on here have a contempt for our laws, but some of us kinda believe that's what makes the UK what we are. If you don't like it I suggest they emigrate to nations more aligned their your own amoral beliefs (to the mutual benefit of both countries).PDR
I am only guessing, but I presume that doesn't apply to you with your opinion on Brexit?
The Nip is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 10:29
  #610 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by parabellum View Post
I can't see why being physically present for a citizenship hearing matters in her case. Begum has made no attempt to explain her move to Syria that would indicate a temporary loss of sanity or judgment, she is happy that she went to join ISIS and has made no attempt to persuade anyone that she is anything other than a terrorist who supports the aims of ISIS. The lawyers who have put her up to this are a disgrace to their profession and I believe the judges haven't made their case, all the reasons for removing her citizenship remain as valid today as they were when they were made and she makes no effort to offer an acceptable defence, so her presence at a hearing is irrelevant.

If I had to guess, then I think her argument will be that she didn't actively participate in any unlawful activity, other than, perhaps, being a member of a proscribed organisation. I also think she may argue that she has an absolute right, under UK law, to her religious beliefs, including her belief in Sharia law and the right to form an Islamic State, operating under that law. There are a lot of people in the UK that agree with the aims of IS, many tens of thousands according to a survey from a few years ago. That doesn't make them all terrorists, any more than it makes all those who support the rights of the state of Palestine terrorists. Going back further, we allowed the formation of the state of Israel, on the basis that many Jews campaigned, both peacefully and via what we'd now see as terrorist acts, for one. Holding a firm belief in the right of a religious, or other, group to be allowed to form their own state isn't in itself an offence, AFAIK.

If there is evidence that she took part in criminal acts, other than her seemingly admitted membership of a proscribed organisation, then I'd expect her to be charged with those crimes. I'm not in any real doubt that she may well have taken part in some pretty appalling acts out there, but it is for a court of law to determine this, and it seems that she is being granted the right to both give evidence and directly instruct her lawyers. There's no real comparison with those who have been tried in absentia, as in all those cases (AFAIK) it has been the defendant who has been unwilling to consent to come to the UK to face trial. She clearly wants to come to the UK for trial, and is claiming that she is being denied that basic right, something very different from someone who chooses to forego their right to give evidence on their own behalf, by refusing to come back to the UK.
VP959 is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 11:09
  #611 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: back out to Grasse
Posts: 291
From my perspective, anyone who subscribes to Sharia law should be allowed to go and practice it in a country where it is constitutionally acceptable.

Sharia law is not a religion and seeks to take precedence over English law in it's application.

There is no justification for allowing this medieval, heretical system to take precedence in this country.

IG

Imagegear is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 11:24
  #612 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by Imagegear View Post
From my perspective, anyone who subscribes to Sharia law should be allowed to go and practice it in a country where it is constitutionally acceptable.

Sharia law is not a religion and seeks to take precedence over English law in it's application.

There is no justification for allowing this medieval, heretical system to take precedence in this country.

IG

However we allow it here, albeit in a restricted form. There are a few dozen Sharia courts in the UK, that hear cases using Sharia law. We've been tacitly allowing them to operate for many years now, on the basis of the freedom of religious expression. The findings of these courts (often referred to as "councils") are not normally binding under UK law (except when they are providing arbitration services). Most of their work revolves around family law and arbitration, and seems little different to the way some other religions operate their own semi-legal system (Judaism springs to mind). As with other religious pseudo-legal bodies, they do not have the power to make judgements that are binding under UK law, but they can still be very influential within their own community.
VP959 is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 11:43
  #613 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 66
Posts: 59
Religion - Holding back the advancement of human civilization for 2,500 years.
meadowrun is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 12:24
  #614 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 751
We are all being advised to telecommute because of the corona virus, i.e. there is generally no need to physically come to the office, so why should she?

Did she not break the law by leaving the UK to join ISIS? Certainly US law is clear on this point. And was it not repeatedly made clear that this would entail loss of citizenship?

Here in Japan, prisoners in their cells are encouraged to reflect and write down their thoughts. If they dig deep enough, what they write can often be sincere enough to convince a judge to reduce the eventual sentence.

Her attitude seems to show concern solely for her reputation among ISIS. Perhaps they have threatened her family, though. Can she not even wiggle a baby finger?
jolihokistix is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 15:33
  #615 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 217
Originally Posted by parabellum View Post
I can't see why being physically present for a citizenship hearing matters in her case. Begum has made no attempt to explain her move to Syria that would indicate a temporary loss of sanity or judgment, she is happy that she went to join ISIS and has made no attempt to persuade anyone that she is anything other than a terrorist who supports the aims of ISIS. The lawyers who have put her up to this are a disgrace to their profession and I believe the judges haven't made their case, all the reasons for removing her citizenship remain as valid today as they were when they were made and she makes no effort to offer an acceptable defence, so her presence at a hearing is irrelevant.
It already has been suggested that there is no obvious impediment to this girl's legal representatives flying to her present location and receiving instruction there.

It is patently clear that Begum's principal intention is to gain entry to the UK on any manufactured pretence and that once here, with the assistance an ambivalent judiciary, weak political governance and a vociferous liberal-Left, she will never be deported. She (and those associated with her) will continue as a concern of the security people and a permanent drain on taxpayers obliged by the aforementioned to maintain, in perpetuity, this person unlikely ever to make a positive contribution to British society. Respect for the maintenance of Law must be preserved, but this becomes increasingly difficult in the face of the growing numbers of flagrant abuses of the nation's tolerance and hospitality by those whose aims are contrary to the well-being of British society, the fabric of which has evolved over many centuries. These abuses should not be allowed.

I'm wondering, in the light of all this professed humanitarianism and the current propensity for the re-writing of history, if a judicial revue might be had of the fate of William Joyce. Surely, a sufficient number of circumstances could be "found" to mitigate his reputation in history and thus have a statue erected to perpetuate his contribution to the new British way of life.



Gipsy Queen is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 17:33
  #616 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: south of Cirencester, north of Lyneham
Age: 73
Posts: 1,247
It is patently clear that Begum's principal intention is to gain entry to the UK on any manufactured pretence and that once here, with the assistance an ambivalent judiciary, weak political governance and a vociferous liberal-Left, she will never be deported. She (and those associated with her) will continue as a concern of the security people and a permanent drain on taxpayers obliged by the aforementioned to maintain, in perpetuity, this person unlikely ever to make a positive contribution to British society.
Additionally, even if she sent to prison, once released, doubtless she will be a drain on society in terms of welfare and housing - She has not exactly developed any useful skills for a Western Society...
radeng is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 18:42
  #617 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 66
Posts: 913
Originally Posted by radeng View Post
Additionally, even if she sent to prison, once released, doubtless she will be a drain on society in terms of welfare and housing - She has not exactly developed any useful skills for a Western Society...
Her skills might come in handy should we adopt sharia law in the future, or even enact capital punishment !!
David
The AvgasDinosaur is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 22:50
  #618 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,025
There seems to be a confusion here about the point of law immediately involved. The issue is not about whether she can have a fair trial in absentia, but whether the Home Secretary can remove her citizenship and right to return to be adequately defended. The first issue (whether her citizenship can be removed) surely is a point of law for which her presence is not required, and hr 'legal representatives' ought to be proceeding on that issue. If the courts decide he does not have the power, then she can return for trial, although then I am sure there will be serious arguments about validity of evidence, resposibility of a child for her actions, and anything else that will obstruct her suffering any consequences of her actions.

We must, as a civilised society, live by the rule of law.

It is very difficult then to handle those who believe the law does not apply to them. For centuries after Magna Carta, which was designed to afford the law's protection of the lowest citizen, the concept of the outlaw could apply - those whose actions placed them unequivocally outside that protection. Are there some actions that could justify that today?
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2020, 01:06
  #619 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 217
Originally Posted by Fitter2 View Post
It is very difficult then to handle those who believe the law does not apply to them. For centuries after Magna Carta, which was designed to afford the law's protection of the lowest citizen, the concept of the outlaw could apply - those whose actions placed them unequivocally outside that protection. Are there some actions that could justify that today?
Why is this difficult?

And in answer to your question - I really don't know. However, it must be fundamental to this argument, (as you have implied), that in order to benefit from the protection of law, one must abide by the dictates of that law. By all means seek an alternative path but in so doing, it must be accepted that those legal protections necessarily are withdrawn. The Begum girl (and others) has chosen to follow a different creed, one alien to the law, culture and history of a country which has given her and her family succour. She has chosen to become, by definition, an "outlaw" and therefore has forfeited the right to access that law, even if she (rather than us) was to fund her defence. She is obliged to suffer the consequences of her actions and for her to be regarded as an innocent pawn is ridiculous. Plainly, she is a malevolent schemer; she and the primitive ethos she espouses have no place here, she should not have her citizenship restored and she should be barred from entry to the UK. Considerations of Magna Carta and the legal provisions flowing therefrom are wholly in-apposite - her case, such as it is, is devoid of merit when judged by any civilised standard and because she has put herself without the UK law, it should not be heard in a UK court.

For once, the mawkish twaddle of the bleeding hearts should be stifled by some common sense. But of course, there will be those who see this as just another step towards totalitarianism. Like stringing up William Joyce?





Gipsy Queen is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2020, 02:52
  #620 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 76
Posts: 337
A "judicial revue" sounds as though it could be fun.
Barksdale Boy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.