13 May Shamima Begum: Why is her case different to other Syria returnees?
Shamima Begum’s case is a well-known case in the UK. It has sparked rage among the public, after she appeared in an interview, showing no remorse that went viral in February 2019. However, there are many questions still unanswered and truth’s untold about Miss Begum’s case.
Is this justice?
When hearing the name Shamima Begum what comes to mind? Most of the public will answer this question unpleasantly as many have no sympathy for her. “Is it justice?” is the question that comes to mind when I think about this case. The International Law states that it is illegal to revoke a person’s citizenship if it leaves them stateless. The UK home secretary, Sajid Javid’s excuse for stripping Begum’s citizenship was claiming she had a right to claim a Bangladeshi one, due to her background – Bangladeshi officials have denied this, which has left Shamima Begum stateless. The family lawyer, Tasnime Akunjee, stated that Shamima has never even been to Bangladesh.
“Shamima Begum was born, raised and radicalised in the UK, and then she travelled to Syria. None of this has anything to do with Bangladesh.”
“She has never even been to Bangladesh.”
Why is it illegal to be “stateless”:
Under international law, a stateless person is someone who is “not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law”.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to a nationality and “no-one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality”.
The home secretary has the power to strip an individual of their British citizenship on the basis that it is “conducive to the public good”, as long as the person would not become stateless as a result.
A new UK counterterrorism law, which received royal assent on Tuesday, February 12th, means that British citizens who spend time in Syria will face arrest and imprisonment for up to 10 years upon return to their country. The previous legislation required the authorities to prove that the returnees had already participated in terrorist activities while abroad, according to a report by AFP. The new law says that simply visiting these areas would constitute a crime, unless there was “reasonable excuse for entering, or remaining in, the designated area,” such as humanitarian workers, armed forces, UN staff, journalists, and attending a funeral or visiting sick relatives.
Oddly, the law came to power after Shamima Begum was discovered in a refugee camp in Syria and desired to return home. There is no evidence of her involvement in terrorist activities such as fighting or recruiting members and although she did marry an ISIS fighter, she was a stay at home parent. That proves that according to the previous and new law, she should be entitled to a right to return home and face any consequences for her travel to Syria.
Racial issues
Although Begum’s case led to international media attention, it was not the first of its kind. According to a report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in 2016, the then-Home Secretary Theresa May stripped 33 dual nationals of their British citizenship on terror-related grounds and several citizenship revocations for other reasons. Mahdi Hashi was one of them. He was stripped of his British citizenship while living in Somalia in 2012. Another case was Tauqir Sharif’s as he and his family were left stuck in Syria after his UK citizenship was revoked and his eldest daughter was refused a passport.
Moazzam Begg spoke to Al-Jazeera and said:
“There were around 36 cases of nationality revocation in 2014, all of which hailed from a Muslim country, with the exception of one, a Russian,”
“It [the policy] clearly appears to be a two-tier and racist system.”
“There are many cases where people have had their nationality revoked based upon secret evidence, evidence you cannot challenge, cannot see, nor can your lawyers see,” said Begg to AlJazeera.
In comparison to these cases, Jack Letts, also known as “Jihadi Jack”, has dual nationality and left the UK to join ISIS in 2014. According to Kurdish officials, Jack Letts participated in terrorist activities whilst in Syria. He has attempted to come back to the UK but has been refused by the authorities, due to his dual nationality which is British and Canadian. However, his British citizenship has not been revoked and according to that, if he did not have dual nationality, he would have been able to face prosecution in the UK, instead of getting his citizenship revoked.
“Jack Letts is a British citizen as well, he’s a dual national and therefore he would be subject to the same law which is “Section 40 of the Immigration Act 81”, which means that he could be stripped of his British nationality because he also has Canadian citizenship. Despite him being a fighter, that hasn’t happened and arguably he is more culpable than Shamima Begum being a housewife with three kids. Yet, she’s been stripped of her citizenship and he hasn’t. The only viable comparer to that is the fact that he’s white.” said Tasnime Akunjee.
Media Coverage and Circumstances
In her interview with Sky News, Shamima Begum said, “just because I was on the news four years ago.”, after she was handed a hard copy of the letter stating her citizenship was being revoked. She denied actively joining any ISIS activities. “I never did anything dangerous. I never made propaganda. I never encouraged people to come to Syria.” However, the public seemed uninterested by the reason she travelled to Syria. What disturbed the viewers was that she showed no remorse in that interview to which her lawyer, Tasnime Akunjee states “I don’t think she did herself any favours”. But, he also mentions that “she had circumstances that were foreseeable” and that “she shouldn’t be judged on her words while she was in Al Hawl Camp because she was surrounded by 40,000 other people many of whom were ISIS supporter women, so the words that she would be transmitting would have direct consequence on her.” It surely sparks the question – If Shamima Begum expressed how sorry she was in the interview, would the consequences have been different? Surely, it wouldn’t have been hard for her to lie about something like this (if she was telling the truth in the interview) if she and her child’s lives depend upon it. Her lawyer mentioned “she was pregnant in a camp in a war zone with limited access to food and medicine” and this proves that in those circumstances, it would have been in her benefit to show remorse in the interview, but she couldn’t.
When Shamima Begum and two of her friends travelled to Syria in 2015, the news was well reported on and documented. A few months before their departure a girl from the same school named Shameena Begum travelled to Syria and she was a friend of Shamima Begum and the other two girls who left with her. Due to her (Shameena) departure, the police became aware of the other three girls including Shamima Begum’s radicalisation. Strangely, with their knowledge of the girls’ radicalisation, the police did not inform their families and did not act upon the prevention of their travel to Syria. It brings concern knowing that the police knew about the girls’ radicalisation and how different the situation would have been if it was prevented.
“The girls were questioned a number of times without the knowledge of their parents after their friend Shameena travelled to Syria in December 2014. Bizarrely, the police gave letters to the girls’ hands to give to their parents, rather than sending the letters directly to them. That is against all police protocols” Said Tasnime Akunjee. He then followed, “We know that the girls were questioned in a group which again makes no sense as children are meant to be questioned with parental consent. The school appears to have stepped in as an appropriate adult which is completely inappropriate. That’s why we have been pressuring for a serious case review around these issues.”
Conclusion
Since the Syrian war started, more than 800 UK nationals fled the country to join the terrorist organisation. Since then, more than 400 of them have returned to the UK due to different circumstances. The public doesn’t know about each one of the returnees as their departure or arrival has not been reported on. Only 10% have been prosecuted for the direct action they have taken in Syria. From the research I have done, I can’t specifically say what has made Shamima Begum’s case different to other Syria returnee cases. I do believe that every factor I have stated plays a role in her citizenship being revoked, but the result is immoral and unjustified.
