SUBSCRIBE NOW

SIGHT

Be informed. Be challenged. Be inspired.

ESSAY: SHOULD AN ISLAMIC STATE BRIDE BECOME STATELESS?

Shamima Begum BBC

Writing from London, MAL FLETCHER looks at the case of Islamic State bride Shamima Begum…

London

Islamic State (ISIS) bride and mother Shamima Begum, now aged 19, has been stripped of her British citizenship by the Home Office.

Her parents, British citizens born in Bangladesh, are considering a legal appeal.

Shamima Begum BBC

 

Screenshot from an interview Shamima Begun did with the BBC

 

“This could prove to be an important test case for years to come – and not just for the UK.”

To form a reasoned view on this troubling case, there are at least three issues we must be considered. Emotion will form part of any human opinion, but it should not rule over reason.

This could prove to be an important test case for years to come – and not just for the UK.

The first question to be answered is this: how many of this young woman’s decisions during her time in Syria were made with an adult awareness and perspective? Was she willing – and free – to flee Islamic State territory at any time during her stay? Would she have done so, with her child, if she could?

Ms Begum left the UK, of her own volition, at age 15, in defiance of her parents.

She might well have known that she was headed into a war zone. She may have been aware that marrying an Islamic State fighter meant aligning with an enemy of this country. But was she aware of the long-term implications of her decision?

A new report demonstrates that while boys joining terror groups are influenced by their families, girls are more likely to become self-radicalised.

The Radicalising Our Children study, published by the Henry Jackson Society thinktank, reveals that girls are more active in seeking extremist materials than boys. Girls also have more say in their decision to radicalise.

This may have been true for the 15-year-old Shamima Begum. But even so, can we be sure that she fully understood the implications of her decision?

As someone who worked directly with teenagers for the first 20 years of my professional life, I can testify that the mind and emotions of a 15-year-old are not well-equipped to make certain types of decision.

I did work with some very troubled youngsters but, no, none of them were considering life as enemy combatants, as far as I know. Yet psychological studies have suggested that because teens use different parts of their brain to make decisions, they are more impulsive than their elders. Their physiology leads them to take less account of longer-term consequences.

“[P]sychological studies have suggested that because teens use different parts of their brain to make decisions, they are more impulsive than their elders. Their physiology leads them to take less account of longer-term consequences.”

That said, Begum has recently claimed that the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, carried out by an Islamic State sympathiser, was a form of pay-back for attacks on Islamic State territories. She has also said that she had a “good time” during her time away.

At least one UK newspaper has reported that Shamima plans to get back with her “jihadi husband” in the Netherlands, if denied entry to Britain.

All of this may suggest that, as an adult, she has now settled on a pro-Islamic State line.

While in Syria, she gave birth to three children in Syria, two of whom died there. It can be argued that even if she started out with the mindset of a child, her circumstances and environment encouraged her to grow up quickly.

The Home Office must explore these issues thoroughly if it has not already done so. An appeal tribunal may yet be called upon to do the same.

The second question we need to consider has to do with the role Begum might have played in the conflict.

What kind of support did she offer the enemy? Was she just the wife of a Dutch-born Islamic State fighter, or did she actively recruit for the cause? Did she go further, taking up arms at any time?

Then we must decide whether any or all of these options should be tried in a court of law within the UK, with appropriate penalties.

Finally, there is the vexed question of what happens to a person who is rendered stateless. Is the British or any other government permitted, under international law or convention, to render a person stateless?

In Begum’s case, while her parents are British citizens, she is not. Nor does she have Bangladeshi citizenship. Her husband is Dutch, which may mean that her child might be granted either British or Dutch citizenship. But what of the mother and what of the future relationship with her child?

“What due process is available to people who have no citizenship? Does she become the UN’s responsibility? If an appeal is made and it is unsuccessful, what recourse is there then for Shamima or her parents?”

What due process is available to people who have no citizenship? Does she become the UN’s responsibility? If an appeal is made and it is unsuccessful, what recourse is there then for Shamima or her parents?

In all of this, without having access to the information available to the government and potentially the courts, it’s hard to form a hard and fast view. First impressions are not always sound. Emotion can easily cloud sound judgement.

Whatever the eventual outcome, this case will have far-reaching implications, because the world is now increasingly mobile.

Some 244 million individuals now live outside of their country of origin. That represents 3.3 per cent of the globe’s population, but the number may be growing.

Most of those people are economic migrants, looking for a better deal for themselves and their families. But a growing number are refugees who are fleeing one crisis or another in the world.

This is understandable given the terrible living conditions millions of people have to endure. Just eight per cent of the global population controls 82 per cent of its resources.

Ubiquitous social media carry readily accessible images of life on the “other side of the tracks”, encouraging those who can afford it to buy passage on illegal refugee boats.

Will a feature of the future be hundreds, or thousands, of people who are considered, by national and/or international law, to have rendered themselves stateless? Is this the best way to deal with treacherous behaviour?

The line between raw justice and humane treatment has always been difficult to navigate. With Shamima Begum, it may have become a little more so. 

Mal Fletcher 2016

Mal Fletcher is a social futurist, social commentator and speaker and the chairman of 2020Plus, a London-based think tank. He has researched global social trends for more than 25 years and speaks to civic leaders worldwide about issues relating to socio-cultural ethics & values, PESTLE Analysis, civic leadership, emerging and future technologies, social media, generational change and innovation. First published at 2020Plus.net. Copyright Mal Fletcher, 2019.

Donate



sight plus logo

Sight+ is a new benefits program we’ve launched to reward people who have supported us with annual donations of $26 or more. To find out more about Sight+ and how you can support the work of Sight, head to our Sight+ page.

Musings

TAKE PART IN THE SIGHT READER SURVEY!

We’re interested to find out more about you, our readers, as we improve and expand our coverage and so we’re asking all of our readers to take this survey (it’ll only take a couple of minutes).

To take part in the survey, simply follow this link…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

For security, use of Google's reCAPTCHA service is required which is subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.