Treason

[malumbu]

Opportunism by the Home Secretary or pragmatism? Are we a tolerant compassionate nation or showing our mettle? Discuss. Policy Exchange believes the latter. Can we be both? https://mailchi.mp/4808bbe70ae7/policy-exchange-agenda-16-october-1986349?e=d0c806d3a9

[JoeLeg]

Given that he?s actively positioning himself to take over from May, I?d say ?hardly surprising? is my initial thought.

It?s like his own little Falklands...

Less sarcastically? Well, when were the current treason laws written? Are they relevant to the modern world? Talking about them isn?t a bad thing so long as it?s done sensibly. So I?d say both pragmatic and opportunistic. Plus just because an MP talks about something hardly means they?re actually going to do anything...

[JohnL]

They'll go after us remainers of course. Supporting the EU - a foreign body.

[JohnL]

From a certain nasty paper...

"Mr Javid was asked by Tory colleague Julian Lewis whether he would consider revamping the treason law to 'specify that it is treason to support a group that one knows intends to attack the UK or is fighting UK forces'".

That could be Spain folks (It's already getting feisty over Gibraltar)

[Blah Blah]

Javid has been engaging in dog whistle politics for a while now and it is clear who his target market is. How far to the right he would actually take the Tory Party if he were to become its leader is another question, but for now, he is speaking to an increasingly right wing and increasingly diminishing party membership.

[dbboy]

Finally the UK has stood its ground and said it like it is. The reason this has been brought to the fore is because of the jahadi school girl who now wants too come back here. She is an enemy of the state and as such has no place here, she fore fitted the right to return here when she went to join diaesh and in doing so committed treason. What's more she's shown not an once of remorse or denounced diaesh. She even called her baby Jarrah after a 13th century murderous war lord.

How about all those who were beheaded in cold blood by diaesh or those that where murdered in the Manchester, London Bridge and Westminster Bridge attacks? Simply put she has no place in this country or right of return, nor anyone who went out to join diaesh and wants to come back to the UK.

"traitor (plural traitors)

1. Someone who violates an allegiance and betrays their country; someone guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers their country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place entrusted to his defence, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished quotations

2. Someone who takes arms and levies war against their country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country.

Hence, one who betrays any confidence or trust."

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/231521

[JoeLeg]

Mr Pedantic would like to point out that - as far as we know - Begum has not committed treason under our current definition.

This is rather the point of Javid opening up the question of what should constitute ?treason?.

That said, she?s shown no remorse over her behaviour or allegiances and seems only to want to avoid having a third infant die in the hellhole she occupies. Now I feel personally that the child has committed no crime and should be allowed to come here; it is the offspring of a British citizen and is currently somewhere that no child should have to be. Begum herself should be arrested upon landing and interrogated, and if she is found to have committed a crime she should be imprisoned.

The child is the complicating factor. It does not deserve to suffer the sins of the parent, but unless she agrees (highly unlikely) it cannot be separated from her and we will have to face that. Otherwise she could frankly stay where she is.

[keano77]

dbboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Finally the UK has stood its ground and said it

> like it is. The reason this has been brought to

> the fore is because of the jahadi school girl who

> now wants too come back here. She is an enemy of

> the state and as such has no place here, she fore

> fitted the right to return here when she went to

> join diaesh and in doing so committed treason.

> What's more she's shown not an once of remorse or

> denounced diaesh. She even called her baby Jarrah

> after a 13th century war lord.

>

> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/231521

She should be allowed back as others have been. Agree with JoeLeg she should be arrested on return and questioned and monitored for the future.

I?m not sure how I stand though with the likes of the Jihadist Beatles. Not only are they likely to be responsible for unspeakable atrocities I can?t see how they?d ever reintegrate to ?normal? life. Shamima at least stands a chance.

Finally on dbboy?s post, I think you?ll find drug dealers and pushers do more harm to the fabric of Britain than our indigenous extremist Muslims.

[fishbiscuits]

The girl can rot in the desert for all I care.

But to withdraw citizenship... seems logistically problematic. Everybody has to live somewhere (even if it's in prison).

[walkman85]

I'd be horrified if she or her offspring were let back into this country. The right message should be that if you want to leave the country to support a terrorist organisation then don't expect to come back.

[JohnL]

We're a member of the rule based international order - you have to follow the rules and the others will follow rules about you.

The "beatles" are in my view hostis humani generis due to their actions and outside the international rules (like pirates of old) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_humani_generis. Not sure this girl is a combatant.

[nxjen]

She would be well advised to stop giving interviews. She is just digging an even deeper hole for herself rather than gaining sympathy. It does seem problematic stripping her citizenship. Has anybody born in the UK ever had their citizenship stripped?

[JoeLeg]

walkman85 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd be horrified if she or her offspring were let

> back into this country.

The child is barely a week or two old. It?s commited no crime, and did not ask to be born. Why should the sins of the parent be visited on that poor infant?

Be all means separate them - an argument can certainly be made that she should not be allowed to raise the kid only to hate this country. But don?t punish a newborn for the hatred of the parent.

The right message should

> be that if you want to leave the country to

> support a terrorist organisation then don't expect

> to come back.

Part of me (a big part) has no problem with the idea of banning her from returning. But the idea of creating a precedent for making someone stateless because they don?t agree with our ideals is somewhat trickier - a slippery slope perhaps. Also, I?m very ok with her returning, being arrested and interrogated robustly (and no that is not a euphemism for torture). Another message worth sending is treat you can come back but we will make damn sure you face the consequences, gloves very much off.

[Blah Blah]

It is very clear from interviews with her that she is not the brightest of young people. Naivety is no defense granted, but we are not talking about some Jihadi mastermind here. We are talking about a teenage girl who was seduced by something she had little understanding of. It is exactly the same psychology that drives teenagers to join any gang. What strikes me most about her, is her lack of emotion. She seems disconnected and this is not a normal cognitive response.

We have had over 300 Jihadi fighters return. Others HAVE been stripped of UK nationality where a clear case of dual nationality exists. So why all this focus all off a sudden on one young woman who never pointed any gun at anyone. I think a case can be made for the old adage that what men do might be shocking, but women only have to stand by to be more vilified. Women are are demonised for less, history is full of examples of that. And I can't help but think there is a bit of that going on here.

She will end up coming back here after a long legal process because she does not have dual nationality. Javid has engaged in dog whistle politics yet again, to forward his real aim of replacing May when the time comes. Yes she will need monitoring, deradicalising and her child may be taken into care, but that is nothing new for he UK. We already have over a hundred returnees undergoing deradicalisation programmes. It can be done. And we also have a legal process for prosecuting anyone guilty of a crime under UK law, of which joining IS is.

[dbboy]

The child is the result of this teenage jihadi getting pregnant by another Dutch jihadi, and where is the father?

So why do you want her child in this country brought up by the grand father who radicalised his own daughter. And the father will not ignore his baby, he'll want to come here from Holland to see her and her baby. Why put this country at further risk? Solution, why doesn't the family go and join her in Syria? Result, Today's child is tomorrow?s terrorist

[walkman85]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> walkman85 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'd be horrified if she or her offspring were

> let

> > back into this country.

>

> The child is barely a week or two old. It?s

> commited no crime, and did not ask to be born. Why

> should the sins of the parent be visited on that

> poor infant?

> Be all means separate them - an argument can

> certainly be made that she should not be allowed

> to raise the kid only to hate this country. But

> don?t punish a newborn for the hatred of the

> parent.

I understand this argument and but personally I would prefer for terrorist progeny not to be shipped to the UK despite how young or innocent they are. Although she doesn't strike me as being an ideal mother or role model, separating mother and child has its own issues.

> The right message should

> > be that if you want to leave the country to

> > support a terrorist organisation then don't

> expect

> > to come back.

>

> Part of me (a big part) has no problem with the

> idea of banning her from returning. But the idea

> of creating a precedent for making someone

> stateless because they don?t agree with our ideals

> is somewhat trickier - a slippery slope perhaps.

> Also, I?m very ok with her returning, being

> arrested and interrogated robustly (and no that is

> not a euphemism for torture). Another message

> worth sending is treat you can come back but we

> will make damn sure you face the consequences,

> gloves very much off.

I wish the system here was capable of that but it could easily be the case whereby there is not enough evidence to prosecute and she walks free. Everyone lives happily ever after...

[JoeLeg]

And here I?m ending my participation in this thread.

I?m ex-Army, I have a ?robust? attitude towards grown people who decide to join organisations such as ISIS, and I do not feel myself to be naive. However the idea that a one-week old infant has been deemed a terrorist already leaves a frankly bad taste in my mouth, to say the least.

We separate children from parents (and the rest of their family) for less, and the father can easily be denied entry to the U.K.. The kid didn?t ask to be born and the fact that you?re already telling it that it?s an enemy of the state is something you might want to think about. Or not. It?s up to you.

Either way I?ll leave you to it.

[Captain Marvel]

are-you-fking-furious-enough-about-the-isis-bride

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/are-you-fking-furious-enough-about-the-isis-bride-20190221182728?fbclid=IwAR0OzyV6FBVU3GCKYkZ4UtWaPwG6VQePvOHSiy96b071BxpAopyZszikiyI

[dbboy]

Joe, please don't end your participation in this thread, it's valued.

[JohnL]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> She would be well advised to stop giving

> interviews. She is just digging an even deeper

> hole for herself rather than gaining sympathy. It

> does seem problematic stripping her citizenship.

> Has anybody born in the UK ever had their

> citizenship stripped?

Obviously she doesn't have a media adviser.

[walkman85]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And here I?m ending my participation in this

> thread.

>

> I?m ex-Army, I have a ?robust? attitude towards

> grown people who decide to join organisations such

> as ISIS, and I do not feel myself to be naive.

> However the idea that a one-week old infant has

> been deemed a terrorist already leaves a frankly

> bad taste in my mouth, to say the least.

>

> We separate children from parents (and the rest of

> their family) for less, and the father can easily

> be denied entry to the U.K.. The kid didn?t ask to

> be born and the fact that you?re already telling

> it that it?s an enemy of the state is something

> you might want to think about. Or not. It?s up to

> you.

>

> Either way I?ll leave you to it.

No, the baby isn?t a terrorist and hasn?t done anything wrong, and if he?d had the choice he probably wouldn?t have chosen to be born in a refugee camp in a war-torn country. I just think he should be kept with his mother as far away from here as possible.

[rendelharris]

The question surely must be has Begum (for whom I hold no brief and seems a pretty repellent character) committed any crime, let alone treason? Unless she has actually taken up arms herself (for which there seems to be no evidence), how does marrying a criminal make her a criminal? As a British citizen she surely has the right to return to the UK and be asked to account for herself and sanctioned as necessary, however much that may stick in our collective craw. Allowing a politician to declare someone "uncitizen" for holding views, but not committing actions, that most of us find repulsive is not a safe precedent.

[actuarygi]

She hasn't even been charged and trialled in the UK court. If UK takes away her citizenship based on media reporting and popular sentiment and UK is really not different from dodgy states like China and Russia.

[Cazzaw]

While the thought of letting someone re-enter, who has left our country to go work for a terrorist organisation a bitter taste in our mouth, we should really consider the experience that this girl has gone through. Why did a 15 year old girl feel the need to leave her family in Bethnal Green to go to Syria? In the time that she has been there, the other two girls she left with have been killed and she has had 2 children die. Sounds like a pretty traumatising experience, no wonder she wants to come back.

Perhaps if we let her back and enter her into a deradicalisation program (as others before her have been allowed to do) we can learn how this happened and prevent other school children from doing the same in the future.

[JohnL]

She's now saying she wants to be an example of how someone can change. Saying the right thing but could be too late (of course she could have got some advice).