I was as repulsed by Shamima Begum’s first interview with the Times as you were. Why would a girl who seemingly had everything going for her leave the UK and go to Syria to fight a war that was not hers? Did she not know how many refugees die trying to make that same journey in the reverse direction? My thoughts on the matter were all summed up in one word “stupid”. I thought she would eventually return to the UK, her baby taken into care by the state and would spend the rest of her life in prison.
Having grown up in Trinidad I am accustomed to boasting multiculturalism while knowing that there is still rampant racism. We all sing “May every creed and race find an equal place” in our national anthem then around elections everyone sides with the political party of their skin colour and waits till Carnival to sing jahagi bhai. As a Trinidadian I understand British multiculturalism very well, the French call it “communautarisme”, simply put it means above ground we all live in harmony together but at the roots we stick to our own communities based on race and religion. But even this disturbing knowledge did not prepare me for Begum being stripped of her British citizenship, her only citizenship.
I highlight that this was her only citizenship because you do not necessarily get citizenship by birth here like in the US. But Shamima Begum was born British, she grew up British, she was radicalised by ISIS in Britain. For the UK government to then strip her of her citizenship based on her parents’ Bangladeshi heritage and the fact that she could apply for Bangladeshi citizenship is an abuse of position. I wonder if the situation was reversed and Bangladesh said they were stripping a terrorist of their citizenship because their parents were British how the home secretary would react.
The Supreme Court has now also decided that Shamima Begum cannot return for a fair trial as she poses too much of a threat to public security. Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988 which provides British citizens to a fair and public trial does not apply to her. Have the British courts forgotten their ruling in July 1992 following the attempted coup in Trinidad in 1990 which upheld an Amnesty that allowed the leader Abu Bakr and all 114 members of his terrorist group Jamaat al Muslimeen to walk free? This ruling was later invalidated by the Privy Council but it stated that it would be an abuse of process to seek once more to prosecute them. The result is that in Trinidad a man who shot our Prime Minister, took over our local news channel and held everyone who was in Parliament that day hostage is not only a free man, but somewhat of a local celebrity. I guess his freedom was not deemed a threat to public security at the time.
Evidently now in the UK the BAME (Black, Asian, or Minority Ethnic) citizens must realise that they are not only more likely to be convicted of a crime, but they may also be denied a fair trial and if found guilty by the courts of media be stripped of their nationality.
