A British ISIS bride has recently had her British citizenship stripped by the UK government so that she can't return to the UK. I was certain that the government did the right thing until I read this article: [spiked-online.com]isis-brides-like-shamima-begum-are-guilty-of-genocide/
This is an interview with a Yazidi lady. She says that ISIS brides have always taken part in the persecution of the Yazidi, and whether they are British, American or Canadian, that's irrelevant - they're all guilty. She continues to say "You cannot just wash your hands of them (by removing citizenship) and leave them in Iraq and Syria." I find it hard to argue against her point. It's like I managed to make a monster leave my house (so I'm happy) only to let the monster go to someone else's house. In other words, the problem is yet to be solved so that everyone can finally be happy. I know it's a rather poor comparison, but I hope you get the point. I don't know the solution to the problem, either. Any thought?
0
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.For those who can't access to the original article, I have copied and pasted it here (sorry, it's a bit long):
‘ISIS brides like Shamima are guilty of genocide’
Yazidi campaigner Pari Ibrahim on the fight to bring ISIS to justice.
SPIKED
1st March 2019
Since Shamima Begum was discovered by The Times in a Syrian refugee camp, debate has raged about how to deal with returning ISIS militants and their wives. Few have suffered more at the hands of ISIS than the Yazidis. Hundreds of thousands of Yazidis were displaced, thousands were kidnapped, sold into sex slavery and massacred. Pari Ibrahim of the Free Yezidi Foundation is fighting to bring those responsible to justice. She told spiked about the plight of her people and why the ISIS brides were no innocent bystanders.
spiked: What do you make of the Western response to ISIS brides like Shamima Begum?
Pari Ibrahim: I lost 19 girls from my family – two of them came back but 17 are still missing. Of the men, 21 members of my family have been murdered by ISIS. Or, we assume they have been murdered because they are still missing.
So from a Yazidi perspective, the sympathy that we have seen for these ISIS brides is terrible. The world needs to know about the Yazidi women who have suffered at the hands of these women. Instead of that, the ISIS wives are invited on TV. They say that they are innocent or that they were young and didn’t understand what they were doing. But this is ridiculous. We know from the Yazidi women who have escaped ISIS that these brides have committed serious crimes. They are participants in genocide.
ISIS’s genocidal campaign against the Yazidi community started in Sinjar in August 2014. They killed men and older women. They kidnapped women and children. Young children were brainwashed to become child soldiers and suicide bombers for ISIS. Women and girls were sold as sex slaves in markets in Iraq and Syria. Yazidi girls that escaped have told me that the ISIS brides would lock them up and beat them. They would shower the girls, put them in nice clothes and put makeup on their faces to get them ready to be raped.
spiked: How should the ISIS brides be brought to justice?
Ibrahim: Personally, as a Yazidi (and all the Yazidis I speak to think this), I think they should all get the death penalty. But we have to stick within the law. There are international laws for crimes against humanity and genocide. Let’s use the systems already in place. What we Yazidis want is for a court somewhere to recognise that these people are guilty of more than just terrorism, that they have committed genocide or crimes against humanity. That hasn’t happened and that is a problem.
The way the West has responded has been totally inadequate. Taking these ISIS members’ passports away is not enough. They are your citizens and your responsibility. You cannot just wash your hands of them and leave them in Iraq and Syria.
The UK, for instance, makes a great deal of noise about ending sexual violence in conflicts. It hosts all these grand international summits on it. But now we see British citizens committing these horrific acts of sexual violence against the Yazidi community and other minorities in Iraq and Syria, but all the UK can think to do is remove their passports.
I’m incredibly disappointed in the international community more broadly. There has been all this media exploitation of Yazidi girls that says nothing more than ‘Look at the ISIS sex slaves!’. It is very easy to just take pictures of them. But 3,000 girls have been kidnapped by ISIS and nobody has helped us to try to get them back. Scores of them have now been beheaded. 300,000 Yazidis are still displaced and there is no solution for getting them back to Sinjar.
spiked: What are the prospects for Yazidis now that ISIS’s caliphate is collapsing?
Ibrahim: One of our concerns is that ISIS has not fully gone away. Even if it has been defeated on the battlefield, a lot of ISIS fighters have gone back to Europe as refugees. Others have merged back into Iraqi and Syrian society. This is something we are afraid of.
We are also worried that if US troops withdraw too quickly from Syria, ISIS could return and regroup. There are many ISIS members out there who are waiting for another opportunity to resume the mass murders and mass rapes.
Shamima Begum is a good example because she does not regret what she did. People like her still support ISIS. It is only because they are losing the war that she and others want to return home. They have no regrets about participating in genocide, sex slavery or imprisoning and killing Yazidi women. It is astonishing that they expect to just return to their old lives just because the caliphate is losing ground. But wherever they go, they will continue to spread their ideology.
Naomi
Level 8
Mar 14, 2019
0
I am unable to follow your link and read the article you are referencing. This is probably because I am currently living on the Arab Peninsula.
Nonetheless, I agree that revoking citizenship seems illogical and unethical. In the U.S, children who commit heinous crimes are tried as adults. This societal response hinges on the same fallacy.
Somehow, unreasonable people rationalize, reality can be suspended if you feel sufficiency hysterical. Whi!e this is understandable in individuals, societies that deliberately choose to collectively go insane together may as well throw throw themselves off c!iffs, like lemmings.
A birth date is immutable, and so are the qualifications that originally made the terrorist a citizen. If citizenship can be revoked for reasons other than deliberate fraud committed at the point of application, governments can and will abandon anyone, merely out of expedience.
There is another concern, however. What is the citizenship of her children? Are their rights being honored?
Women terrorists have a strategic advantage, in that they can create their own hostages. How to safeguard these children's human rights becomes very problematic, when their government chooses to pretend away their 's citizenship.
Ultimately, irrational choices lead to more, rather than less, emotional distress. Better to cope with this citizen's crimes, than to pretend she isn't a citizen.
MrsConley
Level 3
Mar 13, 2019
0
Shamima Begum (the British ISIS bride) initially begged to return to the UK when she was found in a Syrian refugee camp. She was heavily pregnant. She gave birth to a baby boy but he soon died in the refugee camp. While she had her citizenship revoked, the baby was allowed to be British and he would probably have been adopted in the UK. You can imaging how many "emotional beings" were upset by the news about the baby's death, and they blamed the government for not allowing Begum to return to the UK, implying that the baby could've be saved otherwise. Since we're all emotional beings after all, maybe this is a good example of ourselves making a decision rather intuitively and emotionally and then trying to reason/rationalise the decision afterwards (Jonathan Heidt said something like that somewhere).
They turned their backs on the country of their origin I don't see any wrong with the country of their origin turning their backs on them . There are consequences for your actions .
beekeeper
Level 7
Mar 13, 2019
1
I agree about taking responsibilities and facing consequences for your own actions. I'm trying to figure out beyond that point, though, like the Yazidi lady says,"You cannot just wash your hands of them (by removing citizenship) and leave them in Iraq and Syria."
Removing someone’s citizenship and rendering them stateless is not an adequate solution to anything.
It leaves a person in limbo where they have nowhere to go... yet they cannot be nowhere, and so they are in a permanent state of flux.
If she has no citizenship she can’t return to the UK. She won’t be able to face trial. The country she is in will probably attempt to deport her... but where would she end up?
She should face trial. Yes, that comes at a cost to the taxpayer, but if one really values law then it’s a price well worth paying.
InternetDorkWeb
Level 6
Mar 13, 2019
1
Even if Begum was imprisoned successfully so that she will never come out, prisons in the UK are already full of Islamist criminals, i.e., UK prisons are breeding grounds for Islamist extremism, and this is a fact. She would take the advantage of being in prison and try to radicalise other offenders. If that is the case, she could be held in a solitary confinement unit, I guess, but then, considering there are already many others like her, it would be difficult to provide enough facilities so that they can all be held in solitary confinement units respectively.
@Naomi So we should abandon our own western values, because our prisons cannot keep an eye on their own prisoners?
You do not know her personally. You do not know what she thinks about ISIS now, nor do you know if she is even capable of recruiting others. It’s a special skill, not something just anyone can do. One thing we can be sure about though is that as a young girl she would not have been a prominent figure within ISIS.
It’s very funny that you talk a big game when it comes to western civilisation and judeo-christian values, but will actually seek out excuses to abandon them when applying them to Muslims. Perhaps you are a threat to western civilisation too?
@InternetDorkWeb With all due respect, I think you're going off the tracka little. I'm trying to look at the matter from different angles, I'm thinking aloud, if you like, and other members have been kind to offer their views, hence the continuation of the discussion. If I knew the answer to this all, I wouldn't have shared the article. Somehow, you've gone into the attacking mode and I don't know why...
If you are trying to think through the problem and aren’t entirely sure where you stand, I would recommend that in future you try to avoid making strong declerative statements like:
“Prisons are full of Islamist extremists”
“Prisons are breeding grounds for Islamist extremism, it’s a fact”
“She would try to radicalise others”
When you say things like this, it creates the impression that your mind is very much made up about the issue, and are simply looking for a justification.
If that wasn’t your intention, ok. But revoking her citizenship would still undermine the integrity of our legal system based on her religion, and that’s unacceptable to me.
@InternetDorkWeb Because the things you listed in your comment are well-known facts in the UK. It's not just me saying it. In addition, de-radicalisation of Islamic extremists is very difficult if not impossible, which is another fact the UK government acknowledges. I don't know why you're so upset by these facts. I am simply exploring different views. Plus why do I need to seek justification in all this? I am not even involved in this matter, publicly or privately. You're clearly beginning to take it all personally. Time to leave the conversation.
While I sort of see her ... and your ... point, the question is then, what to do with them if they were allowed re-entry?
Were they allowed to return, would they be put ... could they be put ... through a typical “Western Justice” System? Based on what “crimes”? Based on what “evidence”? It’s hard enough to “put away” or exterminate people caught red handed with plenty of solid evidence. These women could only be tried with evidence that amounts to hearsay and supposition.
In other words, we would have no legal reason to hold them never mind actually “try” them.
The only logical answer I could suggest is to leave them where they are and exterminate them there as active members of ISIS along with their husbands ... though the way it works, even then, women are rarely considered combatants and are looked at as “innocents”. It would be best I suppose that, upon capture, they were turned over to Our Allies in the region who are more likely to exact a more appropriate level of “Justice”.
In short, regardless of the argument, the information in that article makes for more evidence that we are right in leaving them where they are until they can be exterminated by a less sympathetic society / government.
Bay0Wulf
Level 8
Mar 13, 2019
2
A good point. Even if they're tried and imprisoned successfully, as the prisons in the UK are a breeding ground of Islamist extremism. It'll only give them opportunities to radicalise young offenders while they're in prisons. Incidentally, the British ISIS bride (her name is Shamima Begum, by the way) has been attracting a lot of media attention. She says she fled from the last pocket of ISIS-controlled territory. It seems odd that ISIS haven't come after her to kill her.
“exterminated by a less sympathetic society”
That’s a pretty chilling thing to say. So do you mean that you are happy to be complicit in extrajudicial killings?
What if those governments decide to let her walk free instead?
@Incajackson How much more radical can you get than “joining ISIS”, out of curiousity.
And it’s pretty clear that ISIS are on their way out at this point, so killing her is probably not their first priority in all honesty.
@InternetDorkWeb Perhaps there is a problem in that we try to deal with a case like this by applying the Western legal system on the subconscious assumption that everyone shares the Western values...?
@InternetDorkWeb ISIS kills defectors and their families and relatives. Begum has been all over the media, plus her family and relatives are in the UK, where there are some Islamists lurking about, yet they're not under threat. Begum is remorseless, by the way. Do you think there could be a plan by ISIS?
@Naomi The belief that someone should be treated differently in a court due to their beliefs would itself be a contradiction of western values.
How do you consider a less sympathetic society to be synonymous with “extrajudicial”?
She chose to go to a place where she did heinous things against their society. She freely joined a group that seems to enjoy lopping off people’s heads ... stoning women in the streets ...
While you might not “like” it, that IS what passes for “judicial” there ...
As to the use of the word “exterminate” ... I get tired of people mincing around uncomfortable thought processes and using euphemisms ... when you deliberately kill something because it’s “detrimental” it’s exterminating whatever it is.
ISIS and it’s followers ... Terrorists who murder indiscriminately ... have earned the “Right” to be terminated at the first opportunity ... ie. Exterminated.
Exactly ...
@Bay0Wulf You should consider whether the language you use may create a certain tone, and that people will make inferences based on it. Like if you are going to talk about “exterminating detrimentals” then it makes you a fascist.
I’m not a fan of political correctness either you see, I think we should be direct about these things and not mince words. When someone refers to “exterminating” people like they are vermin, lots of people are uncomfortable with the thought process that leads to the conclusion that they are fascists, but I’m not.
...
If you remove her citizenship, then she will not be extradited for trial in the UK.
Normally the UK prohibits the death penalty on its own soil, but more than that, it will also try to have those with a death sentence returned to the UK and will refuse to extradite those who are likely to recieve a death sentence if tried.
Revoking her citizenship, especially so that she may be given a death penalty, would therefore be extrajudicial.
@InternetDorkWeb
Actually my “tone” does not “make me a Fascist” ... perhaps your “feelings” are that’s what it equates to ... but your “feelings” are irrelevant. As to “other people’s comfort...” that too is irrelevant.
I am what could be called a “Classic Liberal” though I consider myself a Liberal Constitutional Conservative ...
Liberal thought is that YOU are responsible for YOUR behavior and, if YOUR behavior involves Hurting Others with Malice, then YOU “earn” the status of being “Removed”
Or ... you could say I ascribe to the “Golden Rule” ... treat OTHERS as YOU would have THEM treat YOU (just don’t forget, by YOUR OWN ACTIONS YOU Shall be Judged)
Or ... you could say I reach into the Depths of Time and invoke One of the Earliest Written Laws as by Nebuchadnezzar... “An Eye for An Eye ...”
You didn’t understand my point, clearly.
Word choice and tone are an extremely important part of communication. When you choose to refer to killing people as “exterminating detrimentals”, you are using the same language that was used to justify the holocaust. You know that, and I know that.
You said that this is because you don’t like to mince words. But you’re not avoiding a euphemism here, you clearly intended to create a specific impression with that phrase. Maybe you just want to be the most rebellious teenager in the room, or maybe you really do want to allude to the holocaust.
So you can look at my post in one of two ways. If you really were just trying to impress everyone with your spicy lingo, then I’m just making fun of your lame justifications for writing like a teenager.
If not though, you can take it at face value.
@InternetDorkWeb
No.
I consider her actions to have moved her from the realm of a useful human being to one who is not. (ie. Detrimental)
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Canadian Politics
4021 members
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.