Is exile an act
The Shamima Begum case raises profound questions about racism, sexism and citizenship, writes
The case of Shamima Begum raises strong opinions. Many people feel that her permanent exile from the UK is a just and reasonable response to what she has done. Others are of the view that that fate is discriminatory and egregious.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision satisfied the former camp. All of the arguments put forward on Begum’s behalf were dismissed. She remains de facto stateless in a Syrian camp with nowhere to go.
Begum’s story is by now familiar. Leaving her home in England in 2015, aged 15, she travelled to Syria to support Isis. She lived under its rule for more than three years, married a Dutchman fighting with the group, and gave birth to and lost three babies. She is now 21. Sajid Javid, the former Home Secretary, deprived her of her citizenship in February 2019.
The court judgment followed decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the Court of Appeal. The latter found that the only way she could have a fair and effective appeal was to be allowed to return to the UK. It was challenged by the UK government, which argued that allowing Begum to return would create a national security risk.
The UK Supreme Court dismissed all of the arguments made on Begum’s behalf. The President of the Court, Lord Reed, wrote the judgment which identified four errors in the Court of Appeal’s decision.
Firstly, the Supreme Court noted that a refusal of permission to enter the UK could only be challenged on the basis of human rights. Since Begum’s lawyers did not advance that argument, the Court of Appeal should have rejected her appeal on that point.
The second error concerned the role of the Home Secretary in assessing UK national security and the deference that courts should give to it. It was held that the Court of Appeal erred in not giving the Home Secretary’s assessment the respect it merited.
Thirdly, the weight given to Begum’s right to a fair hearing by the Court of