Wife of ISIS fighter wants to return to the UK

Dorset_Boy

Well the caliphate was never recognised as a state internationally so we couldn't go to war with the state, but we have been at war with IS.

kingstongraham

DeVlaeminck wrote:

no fecker read the Satanic Verses anyway

I have. Enjoyed it, and I can see why people would not like it. On its own, it would not have provoked anything, but the reaction to the reaction to it will have ended up being provocative.

The BBC article was interesting in the way it essentially described it as two opposing "teams" - and the feeling that there was no room for nuance. You had to pick a team, for or against.

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

no fecker read the Satanic Verses anyway

I have. Enjoyed it, and I can see why people would not like it. On its own, it would not have provoked anything, but the reaction to the reaction to it will have ended up being provocative.

I found it hard work and dull, but then I find the why he writes anything to be quite hard work. I can also see why people would find it offensive.

TheBigBean

Dorset Boy wrote:

Well the caliphate was never recognised as a state internationally so we couldn't go to war with the state, but we have been at war with IS.

Isn't that only in Iraq?

imposter2.0

Dorset Boy wrote:

Imposter, she and her ilk don't buy in to the concept of western democracy and so why should she expect to benefit from the safeguards it provides is what I was saying.

Because we are better than that. We have to be. Otherwise, we just become what they are.

Dorset Boy wrote:

We shouldn't voluntarily add to the burden on other tax payers by housing such types.

We already house people far worse than her (child rapists, mass murderers, etc), so I don't see the issue, myself.

Dorset Boy wrote:

Do you really think that she would be employable when eventually released from prison? I don't and therefore under the present system she would receive state benefits.

No reason why not. With the appropriate rehabilitation and de-radicalisation, she would be just as employable as any other reformed convict.

DeVlaeminck

KingstonGraham wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

no fecker read the Satanic Verses anyway

I have. Enjoyed it, and I can see why people would not like it. On its own, it would not have provoked anything, but the reaction to the reaction to it will have ended up being provocative.

The BBC article was interesting in the way it essentially described it as two opposing "teams" - and the feeling that there was no room for nuance. You had to pick a team, for or against.

Many things in life are provocative but given his previous lack strong religious feeling it's unclear as to why his reaction to the reaction (criticism of the fatwah) to the reaction (the fatwah) to the book would be to become a radical muslim. I mean if you weren't already radical wouldn't you recognise a fatwah as a ridiculously medieval act rather than thinking actually I'm with them.

My reaction to his reaction (etc) is to think he was making at least a partial justification for the unjustifiable.

robert88

Imposter wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

Imposter, she and her ilk don't buy in to the concept of western democracy and so why should she expect to benefit from the safeguards it provides is what I was saying.

Because we are better than that. We have to be. Otherwise, we just become what they are.

Dorset Boy wrote:

We shouldn't voluntarily add to the burden on other tax payers by housing such types.

We already house people far worse than her (child rapists, mass murderers, etc), so I don't see the issue, myself.

Dorset Boy wrote:

Do you really think that she would be employable when eventually released from prison? I don't and therefore under the present system she would receive state benefits.

No reason why not. With the appropriate rehabilitation and de-radicalisation, she would be just as employable as any other reformed convict.

In my original post I suggested she should not be allowed to return but in the light of subsequent posts I can see that perhaps I was wrong and that simply barring her from the country of her parentage, education and birth would be wrong. To put her on trial if there is some crime that she might have committed is another matter.

I would prefer to live in a country where she was allowed to return and be given a fair hearing than one that turned its back on her or worse.

Ben6899

She's obviously welcome to come to these shores again, but I'm not sure we should be facilitating it.

As for the "what has she actually done wrong?" question, we'll I imagine she'll be charged under the very wide ranging laws and charges relating to terrorism.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

Well the caliphate was never recognised as a state internationally so we couldn't go to war with the state, but we have been at war with IS.

Isn't that only in Iraq?

This is a very good point - are we at war with IS?

also is it illegal to fight for an entity other than the UK? what if she had joined the French Foreign Legion?

Maybe the Dutch could take her.

imposter2.0

Surrey Commuter wrote:

This is a very good point - are we at war with IS?

No. But the UK and coalition forces are/were fighting an IS insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Surrey Commuter wrote:

also is it illegal to fight for an entity other than the UK? what if she had joined the French Foreign Legion?

No. Mercenaries or those committed to a cause do it all the time, famously in the Spanish civil war and more recently in places like central & east Africa - a fair few Brits fighting for the Kurds as well. And I don't think the UK has ever had to fight against the French in recent history.

Pross

On the subject of having citizenship revoked, what would be the legal position if someone has dual nationality? Could you revoke on the basis that they wouldn't be stateless as they'd have another nationality to fall back on? I'm not sure of the facts in this particular case but I suspect in some cases of British nationals going to join ISIS they may have come to the UK from other countries originally and retained their original nationality.

Pross

I heard some women being interviewed in Bethnal Green on the news this morning saying she should be jailed for treason. I'm not quite sure how they would argue her involvement in a war in another country is treasonous.

I doubt there'd be any problem at all getting a prosecution for being a member or support of a Proscribed Group though both of which have a prison sentence up to 9 years.

ayjaycee

Pross wrote:

On the subject of having citizenship revoked, what would be the legal position if someone has dual nationality? Could you revoke on the basis that they wouldn't be stateless as they'd have another nationality to fall back on? I'm not sure of the facts in this particular case but I suspect in some cases of British nationals going to join ISIS they may have come to the UK from other countries originally and retained their original nationality.

Pross - As I understand it, the correct legal position (under international law) is as you have said.

ayjaycee

Pross wrote:

I heard some women being interviewed in Bethnal Green on the news this morning saying she should be jailed for treason. I'm not quite sure how they would argue her involvement in a war in another country is treasonous.

If it was the same 'mature lady' from Bethnel Green that I heard on the radio, I was waiting for her to add something like 'Those ISIS people coming over here and taking all our jobs'.

Pross

ayjaycee wrote:

Pross wrote:

I heard some women being interviewed in Bethnal Green on the news this morning saying she should be jailed for treason. I'm not quite sure how they would argue her involvement in a war in another country is treasonous.

If it was the same 'mature lady' from Bethnel Green that I heard on the radio, I was waiting for her to add something like 'Those ISIS people coming over here and taking all our jobs'.

Yeah, there two of them. I suspect they've voted UKIP in the past!

ayjaycee

Pross wrote:

ayjaycee wrote:

Pross wrote:

I heard some women being interviewed in Bethnal Green on the news this morning saying she should be jailed for treason. I'm not quite sure how they would argue her involvement in a war in another country is treasonous.

If it was the same 'mature lady' from Bethnel Green that I heard on the radio, I was waiting for her to add something like 'Those ISIS people coming over here and taking all our jobs'.

Yeah, there two of them. I suspect they've voted UKIP in the past!

If we're talking about the same people, I suspect they would probably have considered UKIP to be a bit left wing for their tastes.

ridgerider

One of our great tabloid papers will pay her shed loads for her story and she will live happily and rich ever after.

shirley_basso

The metro headlines amused me greatly - saying it was benefits tourism so she could have her baby on the nhs.

One way of wording it I suppose?

Ben6899

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47270857

She's given birth.
Still doesn't really have any regrets.
"They have no proof I actually did anything wrong"

Naive young girl or coldly calculated. Could equally be either.

rjsterry

More generally, various people are pointing out that European countries trying to wash their hands of citizens who ran off to join IS is likely to backfire.

rjsterry

Ben6899 wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47270857

She's given birth.
Still doesn't really have any regrets.
"They have no proof I actually did anything wrong"

Naive young girl or coldly calculated. Could equally be either.

She's 19 and on her third child having lost two already. That's more than enough to mess you up.

Ben6899

rjsterry wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47270857

She's given birth.
Still doesn't really have any regrets.
"They have no proof I actually did anything wrong"

Naive young girl or coldly calculated. Could equally be either.

She's 19 and on her third child having lost two already. That's more than enough to mess you up.

It is.

rick_chasey

I don’t entirely understand what the fuss is here.

She joined a terrorism organisation.

She is a British citizen, so is entitled to make her own way back. If she has broken some laws when being part of ISIS,and presumably she has, if she returns she’ll be picked up at the border and prosecuted.

Is the concern the authorities don’t have enough evidence to prosecute her?

Then she’s a British citizen, she comes back and they hopefully keep an eye on her.

And I think the foreign office is probably reasonable to not offer any assistance, especially since they don’t have the capability to.


Why is this a debate?

Matthewfalle

"Surrey wrote:

This is a very good point - are we at war with IS?

also is it illegal to fight for an entity other than the UK? what if she had joined the French Foreign Legion?

Maybe the Dutch could take her.

of course we are not and of course it isn't. Why would you think that? how bizarre.

and why would the dutch take her?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t entirely understand what the fuss is here.

She joined a terrorism organisation.

She is a British citizen, so is entitled to make her own way back. If she has broken some laws when being part of ISIS,and presumably she has, if she returns she’ll be picked up at the border and prosecuted.

Is the concern the authorities don’t have enough evidence to prosecute her?

Then she’s a British citizen, she comes back and they hopefully keep an eye on her.

And I think the foreign office is probably reasonable to not offer any assistance, especially since they don’t have the capability to.


Why is this a debate?

It provides an opportunity for certain people, who might want to take over a senior position, to polish their image as a potential leader.

imposter2.0

Matthewfalle wrote:

and why would the dutch take her?

Because the ISIL guy she married out there was/is Dutch, apparently.

orraloon

Ach, give it 3 weeks and it'll be 'what?' I refer you to Gatwick drones, Salisbury (setting aside any recent Russian flags like wot bring the the story back to life) etc etc

Matthewfalle

Imposter wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

and why would the dutch take her?

Because the ISIL guy she married out there was/is Dutch, apparently.

and? sorry, i'm struggling here. i'm pretty sure the dutch - and many other nations - won't give you immediate nationality and residency based on the fact that other half joined an internationall recognised terrorist organisation.

or am i missing something?

imposter2.0

Matthewfalle wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

and why would the dutch take her?

Because the ISIL guy she married out there was/is Dutch, apparently.

and? sorry, i'm struggling here. i'm pretty sure the dutch - and many other nations - won't give you immediate nationality and residency based on the fact that other half joined an internationall recognised terrorist organisation.

or am i missing something?

And? And nothing. I was simply explaining the Dutch 'connection' as you didn't seem to be aware, that's all.

mr_goo

I can't help thinking that the over exposure in the media about this one story has an underlying agenda.