What do you think should happen to Shamima Begum and her kid?

[Lord Mandrake]

AGM-114 Hellfire II.

[ToneLa]

Waterboard the fuck out of her with equanimity and compassion

Literally.

[Morrison Lard]

Straight to bed with no tea, and no tv for a week.

[Flouncer]

What if she gives birth to a bomb - are we willing to take that risk?

[Fake Edit] Just checked and she's ruined my joke by giving birth a couple of days ago. In light of that, I think she should be executed.

[Alberon]

We need to combat her extremism by having her tortured then hung, drawn and quartered before finally parading her head on a pike around the streets of London.

[Ferris]

The state can remove the child if they think the risk of emotional abuse is high enough, which could include being brought up to hate all kuffars and not being allowed to play with the kuffar kids at school, plus there would be concerns around her taking the child to unsafe parts of the world.

There were concerns about her taking herself to unsafe parts of the world, and the authorities took the extreme step of giving her a letter to take to her parents about it ("and make sure they get it, and don't you open it on the way home or anything") so they don't seem that interested in custody battles, especially when the parent hasn't been found guilty of anything, on the basis of her religion (extreme or otherwise). A careerist defence lawyer would have a field day with that. It's her right to be a lunatic and raise her kids in the same way regardless of what you or I think.

It's a complicated case and I'm glad I don't have any input frankly.

[thraxx]

When she comes back and knocks on the door of the country can't we all turn the lights out and hide behind the sofa until she goes away. That's what my mum had us do whenever Uncle John came round and it seemed work quite well and eventually he died so the problem went away then.

[Barry Admin]

Interesting responses, thanks. Ferris, your post was particularly interesting so you don't have to keep worrying about those disclaimers at the bottom mate.

I'm being coy with this thread, and almost didn't start it, because it just doesn't seem worth the effort to try and discuss anything remotely contentious or emotive on the internet these days. What's making it more of a muddled issue for me, though, is this shit I just found out about my neighbour.

This guy is still a teenager. He's in prison now for committing a fairly brutal murder, and has an enormous list of convictions to his name. He just seems irredeemable. He was given a nice flat here and he smashed the whole building up, threatened me for telling him to stop, would violently attack his own friends for seemingly very little - if any - provocation. Two different paramilitary organisations warned him, and he still wouldn't stop.

Basically I just have this gloomy idea currently that some people are irredeemable shits, and as a society, we maybe aren't that great at dealing with them, and that they take the piss out of our collective kindness and patience. *

I know, however, that the system tries its best, and that's all we can do.

* On this point, someone linked to The Sun in the Corbyn thread today, and it was interesting to see all the columnists talking about this case. The person who ghostwrites Lorraine Kelly's one was particularly incensed about this girl coming home to use the NHS and benefits system. The pull quotes alone were useful in showing the visceral reaction people can have to a case like this.

[Blue Jam]

I can't find it now but there was a good article a few months back about how rich, white men get immediately infantilised when they do wrong. Mark Zuckerberg is a man in his 30s with billions of dollars, wife and kids and mega corporation but when the Facebook privacy stuff came out people were falling over themselves to give him benefit of the doubt that he's "only young" and "can learn from his mistakes". See that swimmer rapist for another example.

This privilege is never afforded young women, even if they are literally children, and if anything its used actively against them as its the idea that for them to do bad things at such an age must be a sign of some intrinsic, fundamental evil.

This always happens with sex crimes, with people buying into the narrative that men are fundamentally immature dumb beasts who are led by their penises and are powerless to control themselves around women, while women and girls are wicked knowing temptresses who "know exactly what they're doing" even when they're only 15 and haven't got a clue.

The whole "girls mature faster than boys" thing makes sense if you're talking about boys and girls in their early teens, but it's baffling to see people extending that argument to men in their 30s who have had plenty of time to do their growing up.

[Blumf]

I think we've got a solution staring us in the face here.

On the one hand, you got this 'jihadi bride' woman, who presumably likes all the extremist Islam and that.
On the other, you've got the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who have a bunch of women who'd like to get away from all that.

Why not do a swap? After all, if women are property, surely they must be fungible?

[Shit Good Nose]

I keep toing and froing. 

When I first heard about it my immediate response (before hearing parts of and reading the full interview) was fucking bring her back and repatriate.

BUT...

When I then found out more - like her admitting she knew full well off her own back in advance what she was getting into (which puts a big question mark over how much of it was grooming and how much was her own mindset), the fact that dustbins full of heads (assuming she's not exaggerating on that point) didn't bother her at all, plus her very blase attitude about things generally - I'm thinking "nah, leave her there.  She went over in the first place knowing exactly what the deal was, so what did she expect!??!!? 

Am I right in thinking even her parents are keen on her being, at least, investigated if not prosecuted, which probably says a lot.

On the other hand grooming and brainwashing makes people do silly things, and the after effects last for a long time.

Still don't know what way to think...

I think we've got a solution staring us in the face here.

On the one hand, you got this 'jihadi bride' woman, who presumably likes all the extremist Islam and that.
On the other, you've got the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who have a bunch of women who'd like to get away from all that.

Why not do a swap?

"Stew...you know that Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland...?"



ADDENDUM - incidentally, my thoughts would be very much the same if we were talking about a white person as well.  "You made your own bed, soooo...." kinda thing.  But equally still wouldn't know which way to go.

[Morrison Lard]

She'll probably grow out of it in a couple of years, take down her posters of Jihadi John and One Direction
and be into the next teenage fad, whatever that will be by then.

[Blue Jam]

Basically I just have this gloomy idea currently that some people are irredeemable shits, and as a society, we maybe aren't that great at dealing with them, and that they take the piss out of our collective kindness and patience. *

I know, however, that the system tries its best, and that's all we can do.

I've posted something along these lines in the various "What's your most right-wing opinion?" threads that pop up. I personally believe that some people are beyond redemption and don't deserve to be given another chance because they will just piss it up the wall every time, and somehow you always just *know* who these people are and that they will never change.

The problem is that hunch is really just a prejudice which can't (and shouldn't) be enforced. We can try and judge people more objectively based on, say, whether they have shown remorse or any signs that they have learned from punishment, but we just can't flat-out deny one person a second chance because we just *know* they'll fuck it up. It's everyone or no-one, that's just how the law works, and how it should be.

Of course, this isn't always how it works- "that swimmer rapist" who showed promise as a sportsman and got six months; the privately-educated banker who escaped jail for a glassing because the judge thought a prison term "might harm his career"; that medical student who escaped jail for stabbing her boyfriend because she showed promise as a heart surgeon... all from wealthy families, and these people all got lenient punishments and a chance to redeem themselves because of some idea that they acted out of character and might grow up and turn out alright in the end, when plenty of first-time offenders from less wealthy families might not have been viewed so positively and given the same chance to reform.

[DistressedArea]

Vitamin C helps to reduce the damage caused by free radicals.

[BritishHobo]

It's a very difficult situation, but what I've found interesting is to think about it the other way. Imagine she was from Iraq and she came to the UK to join a group committing terrorist atrocities, then decided she wanted to go home, only to be told no, Britain has to keep her. The very same tabloids would be blaring even more outrage about how we're not allowed to send an immigrant terrorist back home.

It's a strange double standard. We have no responsibility for our own citizens who go somewhere else to do wrong, that's for other countries to sort out. Equally we have no responsibility for citizens of other countries who come here to do wrong, that's also for them to sort out.

I wonder if part of it is a lot of blinkered people, because of her name, and assumed heritage, not even accepting she was British in the first place. To a lot of twats emboldened by a racist media, they probably think of her as someone who's from 'there', and has gone back 'there', and so she's were she's supposed to be.

This all by the way is almost exactly the plot of Kamila Shamsie's Home Fire, which is a stunning novel.

[confettiinmyhair]

I don't know, I kinda think any member of or affiliate of ISIS is going to get the door closed in their face by most people. Even if it was a white male from the Home Counties who converted to Islam and joined ISIS, people would still want him punished or even dead.

My own thoughts is that there seems to be a recognition that ISIS is defeated, that suggests that this individual has no death cult to fall back into. Do you let her face the prospect of extreme poverty in Syria and the potential to lose a third child? Or do you give her a chance?

I'd want to give her a chance in the belief that someone can atone and change. There's also a baby, who has hope for a better future.

[Ferris]

Ferris, your post was particularly interesting so you don't have to keep worrying about those disclaimers at the bottom mate.

I'm being coy with this thread, and almost didn't start it, because it just doesn't seem worth the effort to try and discuss anything remotely contentious or emotive on the internet these days.

...

Basically I just have this gloomy idea currently that some people are irredeemable shits, and as a society, we maybe aren't that great at dealing with them, and that they take the piss out of our collective kindness and patience.

I know, however, that the system tries its best, and that's all we can do.

I always try to caveat my responses with "but I'm just a stranger on the internet so what do I know" or whatever, because it's important not to lose sight of that fact. I don't have divine judgement, and these threads can feel a bit "well, here's my correct response and we should do what I say because I'm so great". I like to undermine myself otherwise it seems too self-aggrandizing. It also helps remind other people that their input has the same value as mine. No less, and no more. That's my opinion anyway*

Some people are cunts, but our society has a legal system set up to deal with that behaviour. It means giving people the benefit of the doubt, second chances, and innocent until proven guilty. That is how civilization should be. Is that still the case when people flagrantly violate societal norms (like yer man who seems irredeemable)? I've seen examples where laws are just not robust enough to deal with the level of human depravity. Trump's use of Emergency powers or trying to remove Rob Ford from mayoral office here in Toronto are good examples - no one thought it would ever be a consideration and suddenly the laws aren't fit for purpose.

The same could potentially be said of someone who travels to a violent ideological crypto-fascist state with the express aim of supporting that state in its war against civilians (and the person's country of citizenship). Like I say, there's a good chance she will get off scot free. Are we all ok with that, in the name of fairness and liberal western civilization? Is the lesson "if you illegally travel to wage war allied to an authoritarian foreign regime, make sure it's one that fails utterly so we can't check the records of what you got up to"? What would we say if someone voluntarily joined the Einsatzgrüppen by illegally flying to occupied Poland in 1942, but wanted to be flown back to London after the fall of Berlin to live in peace (while unapologetically maintaining the same beliefs)?

It's fine to be on the moral high ground until a preventable tragedy happens - at the very least, this baby's life and worldview will be severely warped. She seems unrepentant - if the caliphate raises a new flag tomorrow, would she be on the first flight? That's why I mentioned the former ISIL fighter living in Toronto, to put the thought experiment firmly in my back yard. I think Canada was right to repatriate him and if there's no evidence, well, it's only fair that we let him go as we can't prosecute him with anything in a court of law. But... if something happened to me or mine would I still have the same viewpoint? And if not, why not?

To be honest, my initial snap-reaction to this story was a pretty shameful, visceral one. That's why I posted my long thinkpiece - it's important to reflect on what you think, why you think that way, and what kind of society you want to live in. That's why I gave it a bit more thought and posted my ramblings here as much for myself as anyone else to read. I tried to be objective, and the visceral reaction was fleeting after applying a bit more thought. Unfortunately, a bit more thought removes one easy answer but doesn't give you another to replace it with.

Apologies for the wall of text. Ferris Jr didn't sleep well last night so I'm a bit sleep deprived and rambling. I'm not trying to be coy or evasive with my final "I'm glad I don't have to make a decision on this" disclaimers - that's genuinely the conclusion I come to at the end of my stream of consciousness. Please excuse the lack of editing down, and any typos or nonsensical thoughts. I'm so tired.

_{*see?! I did it again! That was genuinely not on purpose for a joke - I just can't stop myself! I'm just so reasonable and great.}

[Pingers]

Interesting responses, thanks. Ferris, your post was particularly interesting so you don't have to keep worrying about those disclaimers at the bottom mate.

I'm being coy with this thread, and almost didn't start it, because it just doesn't seem worth the effort to try and discuss anything remotely contentious or emotive on the internet these days. What's making it more of a muddled issue for me, though, is this shit I just found out about my neighbour.

This guy is still a teenager. He's in prison now for committing a fairly brutal murder, and has an enormous list of convictions to his name. He just seems irredeemable. He was given a nice flat here and he smashed the whole building up, threatened me for telling him to stop, would violently attack his own friends for seemingly very little - if any - provocation. Two different paramilitary organisations warned him, and he still wouldn't stop.

Basically I just have this gloomy idea currently that some people are irredeemable shits, and as a society, we maybe aren't that great at dealing with them, and that they take the piss out of our collective kindness and patience. *

I know, however, that the system tries its best, and that's all we can do.

* On this point, someone linked to The Sun in the Corbyn thread today, and it was interesting to see all the columnists talking about this case. The person who ghostwrites Lorraine Kelly's one was particularly incensed about this girl coming home to use the NHS and benefits system. The pull quotes alone were useful in showing the visceral reaction people can have to a case like this.

The current thinking is that psychopaths are irredeemable - they spent millions at that Rampton trying to find summat that helped and drew a blank. Yer wan is still a teenager so may be redeemable still, but probably not if he's a psychopath.

[Blue Jam]

The current thinking is that psychopaths are irredeemable - they spent millions at that Rampton trying to find summat that helped and drew a blank. Yer wan is still a teenager so may be redeemable still, but probably not if he's a psychopath.

If I remember correctly, the one major, established biomarker of psychopathy is an inability to learn from punishment- there's a correlation between meeting the DSM V criteria and having an impaired response in those experiments where people are given a punishment (like an electric shock or having a high-pitched noise blaring down earphones) for making a mistake. Here's an old paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Newman3/publication/297197727_Passive_avoidance_learning_in_psychopathic_and_nonpsychopathic_offenders/links/572f3d4908aeb1c73d13a02e/Passive-avoidance-learning-in-psychopathic-and-nonpsychopathic-offenders.pdf

...so if this is the case it would make sense to assume that psychopaths can't be rehabilitated, yes.

It's a very difficult situation, but what I've found interesting is to think about it the other way. Imagine she was from Iraq and she came to the UK to join a group committing terrorist atrocities, then decided she wanted to go home, only to be told no, Britain has to keep her. The very same tabloids would be blaring even more outrage about how we're not allowed to send an immigrant terrorist back home.

It's a strange double standard. We have no responsibility for our own citizens who go somewhere else to do wrong, that's for other countries to sort out. Equally we have no responsibility for citizens of other countries who come here to do wrong, that's also for them to sort out.

I've noticed that when there's news reports of deporting British criminals and comments along the lines of "Why should we have to take them back?" It's the same when you get people suggesting we should deport UK-born criminals and not accepting that we just can't, because like it or not they're ours and no-one else is obliged to take them.

See also: British "expats" going abroad to find well-paid work and a better life are brave and pioneering, while any "immigrants" coming to the UK for the exact same reason are scroungers.

Stupid question: this talk about stripping Shamima Begum of her citizenship- how does that work exactly? What happens when someone has no citizenship of any country? Does a "stateless person" have to live on the run, or try and claim asylum in another country before claiming citizenship? Isn't there something incredibly unethical about making a person stateless, and aren't there any international laws of conventions against it?

https://www.unhcr.org/stateless-people.html

[Ferris]

The current thinking is that psychopaths are irredeemable - they spent millions at that Rampton trying to find summat that helped and drew a blank. Yer wan is still a teenager so may be redeemable still, but probably not if he's a psychopath.

It's no good having a pithy response that addresses the points raised, mate. 50 paragraphs of waffle, that's the ticket.

Think on.

[Lord Mandrake]

"I actually do support some British values and I am willing to go back to the UK and settle back again and rehabilitate and that stuff."

"I just want forgiveness really, from the UK."

She's got some brass neck I'll give her that.

[Cuellar]

Forgive this! [does middle finger]

Nah I dunno, don't really care tbh.

[Ferris]

See also: British "expats" going abroad to find well-paid work and a better life are brave and pioneering, while any "immigrants" coming to the UK for the exact same reason are scroungers.

Stupid question: this talk about stripping Shamima Begum of her citizenship- how does that work exactly? What happens when someone has no citizenship of any country? Does a "stateless person" have to live on the run, or try and claim asylum in another country before claiming citizenship? Isn't there something incredibly unethical about making a person stateless, and aren't there any international laws of conventions against it?

British expats also tend to be more handsome and physically capable, more interesting anecdotes, better taste in popular culture etc etc etc.....

You're right, it is absolutely against international law to intentionally make someone stateless. Unless what's her name has another citizenship up her sleeve, then it's a non-starter. Even if she was a dual citizen, it's quite a legal battle to undertake for political point scoring. She doesn't sound like she'd revoke it voluntarily and the legal case (and potential for a huge settlement if the state loses its case) is enormous.

Our own bill C-24* would have meant stripping Canadian citizenship for spurious non-government approved activities (terrorism, climate change activism, native rights protesting...) could only be applied to dual citizens for this reason. That's partly why it was struck down - you can't leave someone stateless, but you could stick the boot in to dual-citizens. That meant yer average, handsome young dual-citizen about town could be punished in a way that regular citizens could not and that's unconstitutional. Everyone knew this and said so, but the law was passed just before an election to needlessly make my life more difficult gin up votes. Didn't work though did it, you bastards.

_{*fuck you FOR REAL though, Stephen Harper}

[mugwump ji sum]

Although I doubt she's much of a threat in terms of carrying out some sort of attack in England, she shouldn't be let back because she didn't belong here in the first place.
She doesn't really belong in Syria either, I think Bangladesh would be the best place for her and the baby.
Chances are she will be let back though.

[Cuellar]

she shouldn't be let back because she didn't belong here in the first place.

Crumbs!

[Cloud]

It's a tricky one.  It'd be a lot easier to sympathise if she actually regretted her decision to go there in the first place and wasn't just shrugging at severed heads in bins.  On the other hand, there's the Liam Neeson angle of being open and honest about one's darkest thoughts in the hope of us all learning something about how people end up thinking like that and trying to find the root cause that might help prevent more people thinking like that in future.  I'm not sure which applies here (i.e. is she saying this stuff in a Neeson style way of trying to 'start a discussion on the issue'?), having only heard soundbites and not the full context of her discussion.

Also, how do you truly differentiate between someone who is brainwashed or mentally ill, vs someone who's genuinely an evil cunt?  She seems to be a sociopath, so do we put her in a mental hospital or a prison?

If we decide that 15 is too young to know right and wrong (despite her still seemingly not seeing it as wrong now) then we need consistency in cases like Jon Venables.

I think all in all she's our problem and so our responsibility to take back and put on trial, even though the emotional part of me (despite often leaning left on these kinds of issues) would be (disturbingly) quite happy to let her just rot in the bed she made over there.

[Chollis]

Although I doubt she's much of a threat in terms of carrying out some sort of attack in England, she shouldn't be let back because she didn't belong here in the first place.
She doesn't really belong in Syria either, I think Bangladesh would be the best place for her and the baby.
Chances are she will be let back though.

hmm bit too rich for my blood

[imitationleather]

hmm bit too rich for my blood

In case of posts like that it's always a good idea to check their history to reassure yourself that discarding what they say is the best thing to do.

[Cuellar]

Will we be baring entry to those who go and live in Iran/Saudi Arabia and then decide to move back here aaaaahhhhhhh?

[hermitical]

What if she gives birth to a bomb - are we willing to take that risk?

[Fake Edit] Just checked and she's ruined my joke by giving birth a couple of days ago. In light of that, I think she should be executed.

There's still a risk, the baby boy might have a really long dick fuse