Begum cannot return to UK
Jihadi bride ‘very angry and upset’ at Supreme Court ruling
JIHADI bride Shamima Begum was in tears yesterday after being refused permission to return to the UK to fight the removal of her British citizenship.
In a ruling welcomed by Home Secretary Priti Patel, the Supreme Court’s five law lords said the 21year-old’s right to a fair hearing did not trump public safety.
Security chiefs had feared a ruling in Begum’s favour would pave the way for up to 150 others stripped of their citizenship to follow the same route.
Begum, wearing sunglasses, a jacket, T-shirt and leggings, walked silently back to her tent at the alRoj refugee camp in Syria after learning of the court’s decision.
Her friends said: “She’s very angry. And she’s very upset and crying. She doesn’t want to talk to
us.” Begum was 15 when she and two other east London schoolgirls travelled to Syria to join Islamic State in February 2015.
Her citizenship was revoked by then-home secretary Sajid Javid on national security grounds shortly after she was found about to give birth in a refugee camp in 2019.
Begum, who married an IS fighter from the Netherlands, had already lost two children.The third died shortly after being born.
Last July, the Court of Appeal
ruled the only fair way forward was to allow Begum into the UK because she could not appeal effectively from the Syrian camp.
The Home Office challenged the ruling at the Supreme Court in November. It said allowing her to return to the UK would create “significant national security risks” and expose the public to “an increased risk of terrorism”.
Supreme Court president Lord Reed said yesterday: “The right to a fair hearing does not trump all other considerations, safety of the public.”
The law lords also criticised the appeal court for making its “own assessment of the requirements of national security” and ignoring the Home Secretary “despite the absence of any relevant evidence before it, or any relevant findings of fact by the court below”.
The ruling means Begum can still challenge the removal of her citizenship, but will have to do it from abroad.
Downing Street said it was “pleased” with the Supreme Court decision, which Mr Javid said he “strongly welcomed”.
Ms Patel, who has vowed Begum will never be allowed to return to the UK, said: “The Government will always take the strongest possible action to protect our national security and our priority remains maintaining the safety and security of our citizens.” such as the
THE PROBLEM with being out of touch is that, almost by definition, anyone who has fallen into that state will be the last to realise it. Prince Harry’s latest high-profile media appearance suggests he is suffering from a particularly acute case of this embarrassing condition.
Bathed in Californian sunshine, the Prince has recorded a roving interview with James Corden for the latter’s hit US TV series The Late Late Show.
Some of it takes place on an open top bus, while there are also scenes at the mansion used to film the 1990s sit com The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and on an army assault course.
The Prince rehearses his familiar gripes about the lack of privacy accorded to him in the UK, apparently unaware of the irony of making that complaint while voluntarily being filmed for the delectation of millions.
Soon his privacy will be invaded again when his appearance with wife Meghan on an Oprah Winfrey special is broadcast across the world.
It must be hard being a wannabe recluse when you keep finding yourself appearing on TV ratings blockbusters.
As the royal commentator Robert Jobson put it: “The man who wants a private life is talking about his private life again.”
In truth, the Corden interview mainly comes across as a bit of a giggle. But that in itself is a problem with life back in Blighty rather serious right now.
DID Harry know that the interview would gazump a rare TV appearance by the Queen, in which she passed on a crucial message to the British public about getting vaccinated against Covid? No, nobody could think him so malicious. But did he bother to ask? Of course not.
Because time and again the Sussexes have made clear that they will not be bound by the confinements of the royal hierarchy, still less stick to a media appearance “grid” drawn up by the Queen’s courtiers.
Even their famous “thank you for asking” interview with Tom Bradby of ITV News, which first signalled the extent of their unhappiness, overshadowed an official tour of Pakistan the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were on at the time.
Meghan has generally been held primarily responsible for these protocol breaches – as a US showbiz personality with political ambitions she makes an easy scapegoat.
But the Corden interview would suggest that Harry is the prime instigator of the controversy that surrounds him.
At one point he says they first moved to Canada and then to LA as the pressure of being in London “was destroying my mental health”. Clearly press attention must sometimes be unwelcome – especially when it finds things to criticise – and social media can be a sewer, though one that comes equipped with a manhole cover in the shape of an “off” switch.
Being a younger royal sibling – the spare and not the heir – comes with its own difficulties too, as the tribulations of Princess Margaret and Prince Andrew testify.
It is also true that losing his mother at such a young age and in such traumatic circumstances was bound to have profound repercussions. Yet millions of people have overcome tragedy. He cannot expect to be exempt.
In his Corden interview, Harry claimed quitting full-time royal life and moving halfway across the world “was never walking away”. As a political commentator, I was reminded of Tony Blair’s final speech to a Labour conference, in which he told them: “Wherever I am, I will be with you.”
Only someone with a swollen
ego could have made such a claim, with its preposterous intimations of omnipresence.
Prince Hal, with his Californian mansion lifestyle, has less reason to believe his own propaganda than did multielection winner Blair, but has clearly fallen for it hard.
“My life is public service,” he also remarks. Right now it doesn’t look like it, though it certainly could be again should he come back into the fold.
HARRY still attracts immense goodwill and clearly the Queen and the currently hospitalised Duke of Edinburgh are hugely fond of him, as his revelations about their Zoom calls underline. Neither does the online trolling that Meghan has faced reflect the outlook of the British public as a whole.
Many of us remember that glorious day in May 2018 when Harry and Meghan were married with a mixture of fondness and regret. The informality and the style on show seemed to promise so much for the future.
Yet now we brace for next Sunday and the Oprah instalment and shake our heads in disappointment.
Where did it all go wrong?
‘Only someone with a swollen ego could have made such a claim’