Shamima Begum’s recent appeal for British Citizenship has been revoked by the UK Government in a tribunal that was held last week. This case began in 2015 when Begum and two school friends left the UK for Syria, compelled by terrorist propaganda to join the Islamic State. In 2019, the Government first removed Begum’s citizenship after she was found in North-East Syria in a refugee camp; she has stayed there since but wishes to return to the UK.
The Government’s reason for this decision is the safety of the UK due to the brutality of the terrorist organisation Begum was a part of. A Home Office spokesperson suggests that they ‘will robustly defend any decision made’ in ‘maintaining the [...] security of the UK’. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission acknowledged that Begum could have been radicalised for sexual exploitation, however, there was not sufficient evidence and the danger of her return still remained and the decision must be made by the home secretary.
Opposer’s of Begum’s rebuked citizenship are outraged at the responsibility attributed to the now 23 year old who was radicalised when she was just 15. Jonathan Sumption writes that ‘children who make terrible mistakes are surely redeemable’, in a letter to the Guardian expressing his concerns of how young Begum was when she moved to Syria naive to the harsh realities of the terrorist organisation. Begum’s life in Syria from her arrival has been filled with destruction: her marriage to an IS fighter and the grief of losing three children due to the poor living conditions. In a recent BBC documentary, Begum expressed deep regret saying ‘it kills me inside’ and is willing to be prosecuted for her involvement.
Through Begum losing the appeal, questions have been raised whether the reason for UK safety is credible. The independent reviewer of Terrorist legislation opposed the government’s decision highlighting the benefits to Begum’s return. Jonathan Hall KC argues that Begum being in the UK or overseas still poses a risk and considers her gender as a variable making her significantly less likely to commit a violent terrorist attack. Hall will express the importance of prosecution if Begum were to return, suggesting that ‘it is only human to want to see these individuals punished for their choices.’
A recent Guardian article on Begum’s appeal brings attention to controversies surrounding this case. One concern raised was the Secretary of State ‘downplaying the significance of radicalisation’, seemingly brushing off Begum’s case as it was not unusual. Sayeeda Warsi in the article pointed out the weighted cases of rebuked citizenships with Muslims completely at odds with the preached fairness of ‘British Values’ . The article emphasises the racist policies of the UK, suggesting that Britain is behind Europe and the US in its ‘refusal to repatriate nationals from refugee camps in north-east Syria’. There seems to be great concern that the government in the guise of security is failing to take responsibility for a citizen that was once theirs.
Followers of this case since 2015 are divided in opinion by Begum’s rebuked citizenship whether Begum is a danger to the security of the UK or a regretful young adult radicalised by a violent jihadist group. It seems this debate will continue, for now Begum will remain in Syria.