"He has no proof that I'm a threat. Other than that I was in ISIS, but that's it."
Those words were spoken by Shamima herself, in an ITV interview last February, following the then Home Secretary Sajid Javid's decision to revoke her British citizenship. Last week, the Supreme Court backed the Home Office's decision, blocking her return to the country to stand trial, citing 'national security' risks. But is the 21-year-old a threat? Or is she just a vulnerable, brainwashed child who made a tragic mistake?
In 2015, then 15-year-old Shamima left the country with two friends to join ISIS; flying first to Turkey, before travelling on to Raqqa in Syria, an Islamic State stronghold. There she married Yago Riedijk, a Dutch recruit and fighter, whom she had three children with - all three have since died.
After ISIS was largely defeated by Syrian-Kurdish forces in 2018, Shamima ended up at a refugee camp in Al-Hawl, northern Syria, where she was found by The Times' war correspondent Antony Loyd, having stated that she intended to return to the UK.
There has been a great deal of speculation about the exact involvement that Begum had within the terrorist group; some reports say that she was an enforcer in their "morality police", carried a Kalashnikov rifle, and earned a reputation as a strict enforcer of the laws. She also allegedly tried to recruit other women to join the group, and even stitched suicide bombers into explosive vests.
In respective interviews with Loyd, and then BBC's Quentin Sommerville, Shamima stated that she did not regret joining ISIS, and had been unfazed while watching a man be beheaded as an 'enemy of Islam'. She asked for forgiveness, stating that ISIS did not deserve to win because of the corruption and oppression within the group, and that she was inspired to join by videos promoting the 'good life'.
Despite expressing that it was wrong to kill innocent people, when asked about the Manchester Arena bombing, she continued to support IS ideology and justify atrocities committed by the terrorist group.
Last week, the Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals and upheld the Home Office's decision to revoke her citizenship, despite this breaking British and international law, as it renders Begum stateless (though a court ruled that she holds Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, the Government there have said if Begum enters Bangladesh she will be sentenced to death).
Prevent is the UK's controversial counterterrorism strategy - aiming to "respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism" and "prevent people from being drawn into terrorism". It involves education about the risks of radicalisation in schools, requires institutions and companies to report people they think are at risk, and provides counselling for those identified as potential recruits through the Channel process. Obviously, in this case, and sadly too many others, the strategy failed.
Prevent has been criticised for being ineffective by many since it's creation in 2002 - among those is human rights lawyer Amrit Singh, who suggests that the policy has no solid empirical basis, and that there is simply no way to know who is going to become a terrorist. Moreover, the strategy clearly 'prioritises' Islamic extremism, largely overlooking the rising threat of white nationalism in Britain.
Either way, Shamima Begum slipped through the net by joining a terrorist group. While the extent of her involvement is debated, it seems as though at the very least she still believes in the ideology of Islamic extremism. So what should be done about her?
It is my opinion that the Supreme Court's ruling last week is completely unacceptable. Regardless of what you have done, the rule of law is universal, and it must be applied as such. Denying Shamima Begum a fair trial and making her effectively stateless is a clear violation of domestic and international law, and it is difficult to see how this decision has come about as anything other than political expediency.
As the decision stands, she is left in limbo. If she escapes the camp where she currently is, she will be both a serious danger and in serious danger wherever she ends up. If she is imprisoned in Syria, she will either be killed or have her human rights violated in unthinkable ways. Some may argue this is tough luck - she did join ISIS, after all. But an eye for an eye is never a viable approach - we forget, I think, that behind all the media attention, the newspaper headlines, there is a human being. She may be a terrorist, the lowest of the low in many people's minds, but as a British citizen she is as entitled to fair treatment as the rest of us, whether you like it or not. I absolutely understand the severity of her actions will cause many to have serious reservations about this, but that alone simply cannot wash as justification for violating deeply held principles which are fundamental to our democracy.
The issue then becomes how to deal with her here. Our current hard-line attitude towards crime, which consecutive governments in the UK have supported, is nonsensical. Being 'tough on crime', is popular, but almost entirely ineffective and largely counterproductive.
Let me explain. Say Begum stood trial in the UK, which I believe she should, under terrorism, and whatever other charges, and was found guilty. She would serve, most likely, a large number of years in a maximum security prison, receiving no re-education, no support, and no effort to rehabilitate her. She would be released into the community, eventually, still brainwashed into that radicalised mindset, free to re-join ISIS and potentially be a threat.
Reoffending rates in the UK and USA, where prisons focus on punishment, can reach 75%. In Scandinavia, where the emphasis is much more on rehabilitation, they are usually below 20%. This begs the question: why are we punishing our prisoners when this only makes them more likely to commit more crime after they're released? It makes no sense. Were Begum to be imprisoned here, it is crucial she receive support - and yes, the word support is appropriate here, because it has been proven that beating her with a metaphorical stick will only come back and hit us harder.
It is a disgrace how the Government and the Supreme Court have handled the Shamima Begum case. How can we possibly claim to be a champion for human rights and the rule of law when we treat our citizens like this, condemning them for eternity?
She must stand trial in the UK, with a lawyer defending her, and when she is found guilty under whatever charges, she must be imprisoned. She may have been brainwashed when she was young and vulnerable, but I strongly believe that she, along with most other criminals, is not beyond rehabilitation. We must focus on this aspect of imprisonment, otherwise we are failing those we lock up and, more importantly, the communities they are subsequently released to. I accept that rehabilitation is not possible for everyone, especially given resource limitations, but what the hell is the point of locking people up otherwise? If we don't even try, prison will only serve to make more criminals and do more harm to society.
The harder you crack the whip, the worse the backlash - that principle applies to Shamima Begum more than anyone.
Comments