There’s nothing ‘lefty’ in letting Begum fight her case
She’s a striking young woman. Her face, impassive and beautiful, stares out from front pages and television screens. Shamima Begum – the brainy teenager who ran away with two friends to become an Isis bride aged 15 – is desperate to come home. Now, the Court of Appeal has ruled she must be allowed to do so, to plead for the return of her citizenship in person.
Throughout, she has remained an enigma. Consider these two views:
Paul Morris wrote in a letter to the i newspaper, “Shamima Begum is barely 20 years old. She’s seen her three babies die. She’s alone and friendless in a refugee camp. She is unloved. And yet Priti Patel and her Home Office do not have the compassion to let her return home. I am appalled, disgusted and ashamed.”
Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail sums up the opposing view. “Most girls of 15 rebel by getting a tattoo or dyeing their hair, not by running off to join a fanatical death cult ... she’s a hardened, grown woman with battlefield experience.”
Littlejohn rants that Begum has engaged a “left-wing law firm” to fight her case, and will “probably” apply for legal aid, meaning that taxpayers will be picking up the bill.
By the time Begum was found by a reporter in a Syrian refugee camp in February 2019, she had (willingly or not, we can only guess) been involved in a momentous series of events. An arranged marriage to a Dutch Isis fighter, aged just 15. She had given birth to two children, who both died of sickness and malnutrition and her husband had surrendered to Syrian government fighters. She was injured in an airstrike that killed another woman and a child in the house where she was staying. Pregnant for the third time, she told the reporter she wanted to return to the UK but the former Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, revoked Begum’s citizenship. She became a pariah, not welcome in the country of her birth.
The stage was set for a battle between those who oppose the return of any former Isis sympathisers (they have betrayed their country) and their opponents and human rights activists, who see the treatment of Shamima Begum and other refugees as a moral outrage.
Finally, her third child died.
And where do our religious leaders stand? They seem to be conspicuously silent. Suffer the little children, Jesus said, and yet the Archbishop of Canterbury seems more concerned about offensive statuary in his churches than the protection of a girl, who at 20, has been groomed, probably brainwashed, and seen things that no parent would want their child to witness.
Where are the Imams, who should be demanding Begum be returned to her family, allowed to rebuild her life and rediscover the civilised values that most of us hold dear? I’m not an apologist for this young woman – she has said some stupid things. But everything indicates that she was groomed in the UK and she was raped on arrival in the caliphate – no one can consent to sex at 15 with a man she didn’t even choose. War must have quickly gone from exciting to terrifying. Losing one child after another in filthy and squalid conditions. Ending up in a camp, known by a number.
Last year she told a journalist, “I’m not the silly 15 year old who ran away.” She also admitted, “When I saw my first severed head it didn’t faze me at all.” Surely these remarks give an indication of her fragile state. Critics allege she had helped to recruit other women to the cause, that she had sewn suicide vests. Were these actions performed willingly? How can she not be damaged, mentally and physically?
The morality of excluding Shamima Begum from the UK is highly debatable
Cynics say Begum has been coached to appear contrite and that she will resume her work for Isis if she is allowed back in the UK. Others say she must plead her case in person, and if citizenship is restored, she must be supported and helped to recover. If this doesn’t happen, she will become a poster girl for more terrorists, she will become embittered and could potentially be used by propagandists pushing violent acts. In the UK we don’t cut off people’s hands if they steal, we don’t stick them in the stocks or whip them for
adultery, but we seem incapable of accepting that a schoolgirl’s behaviour was that of a child – she was under the age of consent when she ran away.
It should not be seen as feeble or “lefty” to want Shamima Begum to be allowed to attend court in the UK. If this was your child, would you disown them? She has no passport, no travel documents. But it’s not impossible to extract her. She could be taken to the border between Syria and Iraq, and driven to the British Embassy there. An aid plane could bring her back. And what of the other “stateless” women and children in her camp, the embarrassing human detritus of a dirty war?
Do we just hope they will vanish into thin air? They were all someone’s children once. Two weeks ago, the French government repatriated some children from the camp. Last October, the British government brought a handful of orphans back to the UK. There are thousands of women and children stranded, and it’s estimated that 700 have died in recent months from the appalling conditions. As the west dithers, these young children are likely to be indoctrinated by the older ones.
The morality of excluding Shamima Begum from the UK is highly debatable. Unfortunately, we have a macho government, one where (mostly white) men from a certain background decide to open barbers before beauty salons, where pubs are open before nurseries, and horse racing went ahead at Cheltenham when there was a pandemic around the corner. It’s women who have been most affected by Covid-19, looking after elderly relatives, working on the front line in supermarkets and shops. There are just six women in a cabinet of 22, and only one – Priti Patel – has led any of the press briefings since March.
The Home Secretary might not want Shamima Begum to return, but if there were women and mothers at the beating heart of government then we would never have got into this mess over a sexually abused schoolgirl in the first place. Boris Johnson might want to appear “tough on terrorism” but allowing Shamima Begum to return home (under guard) isn’t a sign of weakness. It’s simply being humane.
Bristol’s mayor has a lot on
I’m impressed by the mayor of Bristol, Marvin Rees, the first directly elected black mayor in the UK.
When demonstrators recently tore down the statue of slave trader Edward Colston and dumped it in the docks, the mayor (who might have sympathised as his ancestors hailed from Jamaica) had it hauled out and sent it to be restored. It may eventually go on display in a museum, if that’s what locals want.
Rees has set up a commission to help Bristol’s residents “understand its full city history” and they will be consulted about what might fill the empty plinth – but it’s already causing more controversy, with vandals desecrating the grave of an enslaved African man in the city. Another person who weighed into the debate is sculptor Marc Quinn, who secretly made a statue of Black Lives Matter protester Jen Reid, sticking it on the plinth in the dark earlier this week. The artwork was soon removed on the mayor’s orders.
Rees complains that, as a high-profile black politician, he is being “boxed in” as the Black Lives Matter campaign threatens to overtake his other considerably important duties – overseeing regeneration of the city centre and finding funding for more housing. Some people have complained that because Quinn is a white Londoner he’s not entitled to comment and that any new statue should be by a black artist.
I don’t envy Marvin Rees one bit.