Shamima Begum, to forgive or not to forgive? The request of this 19-year-old British Muslim to return to England after defecting to ISIS has sparked debate on the issues of remorse and culpability of minors for serious criminality. A martyr, a victim, a misguided youth, an accomplice to terrorism, a precedent for case law. Shamima has certainly divided opinion over how her wrongdoings should be viewed. Never in recent memory has a supporter of terrorism generated such controversy and even more surprisingly, sympathy.
Support from the public is undeniably linked to her young age. Shamima made her decision to join ISIS when she was 15 years old. A child beyond 10 years old committing any crime can still be tired and sentenced under British Law. Her decision to stay with ISIS continued past her turning 18 when she was fully capable as an adult to take criminal responsibility. Now at 19, her naivety is coincidental and unfortunate at best.
Let’s consider if this was a British boy who had been radicalized and fathered a child whilst part of ISIS. Would they be given sympathy for their regret? What we have here is a gender bias from both men and women on social media that no one is talking about. ‘She’s a victim’ ‘she was groomed’, ‘she’s traumatized.’ Were the teenage boys who defected to ISIS at the same age ever given victim status? Where was all this uproar for them? Two similar cases of British-Bangladeshi men were repatriated back to England only because of legal reasons, not on the basis of forgiveness. The same should apply to a female member of ISIS.
Having made the case that she is fully culpable for her actions, the question now is does the punishment fit the crime? The legal dilemmas here are more complex than many of us realize. Our (Head of ) Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, states his decision to revoke Shamima’s citizenship was in the interest of national security. Foreign terrorists and accomplices are also banned from entering the U.K. under the same principle. Opponents argue she has not been given a fair trial to be prosecuted and sentenced.
However, the statistics presented in Parliament last year revealed that only one in ten of all jihadists returning to the UK were prosecuted. The Director of the Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism, Nikita Malik, has expressed concern about British laws not being robust enough to allow for prosecution in these cases. The current legal framework prohibits much of the evidence collected on terrorists abroad being admissible to court. There is the very real possibility of Shamima being free on a technicality despite her openly saying she left to join ISIS. It is therefore unfair to label Sajid Javid’s decision as purely political, xenophobic or washing hands of responsibility. Risking miscarriage of justice really is at the expense of Britain’s security if Shamima (and subsequent cases) cannot be adequately prosecuted.
The debate has since shifted to the issue of her citizenship. The ‘bloodline’ law in Bangladesh means Shamima may be a citizen there by default because of her Bangladeshi mother. Bangladesh are in the process of disputing this with the Home Office, meaning the U.K. could have illegally rendered an individual stateless. Shamima also has the right to appeal the Home Office’s decision by proving the Home Secretary acted disproportionately.
One fact remains: she admits to joining ISIS. This in itself is the definition of proscription and is illegal under the Terrorism Act 2000. It is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. If she is accepted back into the U.K, she will be tried and sentenced in accordance with those laws. An indefinite/temporary ban from re-entering the U.K. may ironically be the more lenient punishment, all things considered. Quite simply put by Sajid Navid (Home Secretary), if you back terror, there must be severe consequences.
Similar Read: God Save the King, the Demise of a Regime