Four years ago, three British schoolgirls left the country and made their way to Syria to support the so-called Islamic State (aka IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh). Aged just 15, they had each been groomed into extremism and now, four years later, one of them wants to come home.
Shamima Begum, who is now 19, was married as a child and lost two children as toddlers. Having given birth to her third child, a boy, four days ago, she is living precariously in a Syrian refugee camp.
No person who was brainwashed and groomed into extremism and child marriage should be blamed for their plight, but Begum has not attracted public sympathy. She is brown and she is not slamming IS outright, so racism and scepticism are overriding what people think. The fact that she is living in a situation where being overly critical of IS could put her life in danger is being overlooked, as is the idea that some of the brainwashing that she underwent to get her there in the first place could still be affecting her mentality.
Now, British Home Secretary Sajid Javid has removed Begum’s British citizenship, essentially leaving her stateless. This is against international law, but the fact that she could technically apply and qualify for Bangladeshi citizenship because of her parents’ nationalities is being used to justify the statelessness. Begum’s family is appealing this Home Office decision.
We don’t have to like her
From what I’ve seen in the media, I don’t think I would like Shamima Begum. However, we do not have to like somebody to want the legal and ethical course of action to take place. She is entitled to not be stateless in a dangerous world, she is entitled to come back to her country of origin, she is entitled to want to preserve the life of her brand-new baby after her last two babies died in the same circumstances. Her family are entitled to want them both to come home.
She said she wasn’t too bothered by seeing a severed head in a bin, which led to outrage. Of course, this could be a sign that she is a terrifying psychopath, but the signs are more that she is a traumatised young woman who dealt with absolute horror. She wasn’t too impressed by the Manchester bombing but didn’t condemn it openly either – again, she’s living at reach of other IS members and probably daren’t say anything that goes too far against the party line.
It is true that she went to Syria to support the fighters but she was not an adult making an adult decision. She has said she is willing to undergo prosecution in the UK for any crimes she is charged with, and so she should be allowed to face those charges. She should be deprogrammed by experts in cults and extremism, and she could even be used to gain information about Syrian fighters and what the situation out there is like.
She could use her experiences to prevent others from being brainwashed in the same way.
She told Sky News, “I didn’t know what I was getting into when I left.
“I was hoping that maybe for the sake of me and my child they’d let me come back. Because I can’t live in this camp forever.
“They don’t have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous. When I went to Syria I was just a housewife for the entire four years. Stayed at home took care of my kids.”
By not helping to bring Begum home, we could be instrumental in letting other girls be groomed in the same way as she was, with little to no insight into what would be an effective way to help them. We would also be condemning her tiny baby, who really really did nothing wrong, to a terrible life in an overstretched refugee camp that he may or may not survive.
As Mark Steel wryly put it, “In any case, this is an Isis baby, gurgling hatred and squeezing out vile anti-western poo. Don’t tell me that baby didn’t know what it was doing when it was conceived by a traitor.”
Who should take responsibility?
The other thing that removing Begum’s citizenship does is plonk the responsibility onto somebody else. Who, then? Bangladesh is the most-discussed option, with Syria also suggested. As if they all didn’t have enough to be dealing with.
We, as a country, created Shamima Begum and we, as a country, should take responsibility for rehabilitating her and making her a member of a society we’re not ashamed to be part of. We are a well-off, privileged country that must do better than palming our problems off on countries that have plenty on their plate already. She has never held any other nationality before. Why should Bangladesh or another country take her on now? (As it is, they won’t. So, Javid, the next move is yours.)
Having a nationality is internationally recognised as a human right. We might not like Shamima Begum and we might not want her on our soil, but we raised her and we are responsible for holding her to account using all the legal avenues we have at our disposal. Leaving her to someone else to take care of is unethical, cruel and irresponsible.
Photo: thierry ehrmann