• GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    Just those who joined a literal terrorist cell I’d say. It’s not their fault, but giving brainwashed, radicalized religious zealots citizenship in the very societies they left to destroy is even more wrong. And while we shield children from most consequences, some things are too heinous to forgive like that.

    • Womble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Its not about giving her citizenship, she already had it from birth but had it stripped away under the pretence that she could get Bangladeshi citizenship (which they dispute). This is essentially the UK trying to dump its problems elsewhere and setting the awful precedent that if you have recent ancestors with another nationality you can be stripped of the one you were born with.

      By all means punish her, lock her up for 30 years for all I care, but trying to pretend she isn’t British and foisting the problem elsewhere is disgusting.

      • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        The Daily Telegraph reported that Begum had developed a reputation as an enforcer amongst other members of IS and had tried to recruit other young women to join the group.

        I’m having a hard time working up any sympathy honestly.

        She’s a citizen of the caliphate or whatever now?

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          I don’t see any need for sympathy for her, as I said lock her up for however long is appropriate. The problem is the UK trying to dump its problem citizens on other countries and setting a dangerous precedent for stripping away peoples citizenship and potentially leaving them stateless (which is against all sorts of international agreements)

          • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            This seems hardly like a recurring theme. But clearly seems legal under british law.

            Seems like she can and should be tried in Syria.

            • Womble@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Its sad that bigots like you cant read the either of the times where I said I dont have sympathy for her and would have no problem with her being put in jail for what she did. Somehow I get the feeling their wouldnt be this same lust for stripping someone of their citizenship of birth if her mum was French.

    • livus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      @GregorGizeh

      giving brainwashed, radicalized religious zealots citizenship in the very societies they left to destroy is even more wrong

      I can’t work out which side you’re arguing for here. A British citizen went to Syria to attack Syrians.

      Britain then made the Syrians pay for her upkeep. At one point the Syrians specifically the Kurds were being forced to pay for the upkeep of hundreds of Westerners who had come to kill them. It’s really messed up.

      She should be in a British jail.

      • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        I suppose I am just generally in disagreement with the concept that anyone has to be responsible for enemies of their host society.

        Exiling people who harm or oppose the community in a dangerous way has been a reasonable and accepted practice since forever. For that matter, I would love to exile our German fascist supporters to Russia so they can die for the führer they so idolize. These people are technically brainwashed too, victims of Russian disinformation campaigns. Does that absolve them from responsibility? No.

        To return to the original example: If they want to join a religious terrorist group, alright, but then they are that group’s responsibility. If that group are just stateless, disorganized fanatics that couldn’t possibly provide a good way of life for anyone even if they had the resources, that’s not anyone’s problem but their own.

        There are some things that are not forgivable in my opinion, one of them is to set out to actively participate in a religious terror campaign. Why should any other society be responsible for them?

        • ralphio@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Well in your scenario she would become the problem of Syria, and whatever you think of the Asaad regime there’s a reason these types of exiles are not accepted under international law. When a large county uses a smaller society as its de facto prison it doesn’t tend to work out too well for the natives (see Australia), so it’s just not allowed in principle. In reality the British are trying to say it’s Bangladesh’s problem since her parents are from there which doesn’t really make sense.

          • Omgpwnies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            see Australia

            Interesting that a British prison colony has become at least (if not more) civilized than their jailers…

        • livus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          @GregorGizeh thanks for this comment. I do understand your perspective now and you’ve explained it well.

          I think you and I just have some different principles. For you, if someone breaks the social contract then they lose some of their human rights. For me, they don’t, human righs are inalienable, and importantly that person also remains the responsibility of the society that produced them.

          I acknowledge that human rights are a modern concept and as you point out, making people stateless/exiling has a ling tradition in human history. So are a lot of things I disagree with, though.

          Thanks for the exchange of ideas.