Should Jihadi brides be allowed to come ‘home’?
Everyone is talking about “The Three Girls” who ran away to become IS brides, one of whom has resurfaced and now wants to come “home”. Shamima Begum is nine months pregnant and unrepentant. The question is, should she be let back into the UK?
The general public thinks no, she made her bed and she must lie on it. The internet says no, overwhelmingly.
I’m ambivalent myself because... what if she and her child die or get killed? I don’t like the idea of martyrdom. The very idea is grotesque.
The World at One dealt with this news. The car radio is a bit crackly and tends to fade in and out, but I thought I heard Sarah Montague chatting to a former Met. Chief Superintendent called Dal Babu. (I’ve looked him up, and it seems he bears a grudge against his former colleagues) and I do believe he said it was the police’s fault that these girls managed to get away. He said they had been under surveillance at the time, and the police could have warned their parents, but didn’t. He said the police gave the girls letters for their parents but they didn’t pass them on.
Babu’s theory that the parents were completely ignorant of their daughters’ Jihadi-like aspirations struck me as extremely dubious, since at least one of the other girls' parents, Hussen Abase, pictured at the time of their disappearance holding a teddy bear, turned out to be pretty a radicalised Islamist himself. (he was caught on film gesticulating angrily, amongst the mob at an Islamist riot)
The next part of the programme included an explanation as to what might have driven the girls to run away. Henna Rai of the Women Against Radicalisation Network suggested that the girls’ families were “orthodox” and would have controlled their girls’ lives and imposed the customary severe Islamic-style restrictions upon them, so, what with “their hormones flying and no other way to express themselves”, naturally they’d want to escape, who wouldn’t?
I’m inclined to blame Islam itself, which - as well as the so-called 'groomers', was surely conveyed directly through the ones who fuck you up - your mum and dad. I love the way BBC people like to describe repressive, unreconstructed sixth-century cultural practices as “orthodox’ or sometimes ‘conservative’.
So go and interview the families. They put on a fine histrionic display of emotion for the cameras at the time of the girls’ abscondences; what with the tears and the teddies, and “Please come home, you’re not in trouble”
Yes, You. Are.
It’s very sad that both this girl’s babies have died. I’m sure the conditions in Syria were appalling, but you can’t help noticing that Ms Begum herself didn’t look particularly malnourished. Should she succeed in making her way back home with the baby I doubt she’d ever be trusted to look after it.
Don't worry there is only a 1 in 300 chance that she will be a Jihadi if she comes back! [Learnt that on Jeremy Vine].ReplyDelete
On the other hand diesel particulates might knock a few days off your life so best ban them.
Lauren Southern, Shamima Begum, which one poses the greatest risk to 'British values' (and lives)? Tough one.
People travelled to the Caliphate to declare their undivided loyalty to the Caliph, under Islamic law. We should take them at their word. We should (or should have, if we didn't have such a weak government, we would have) strip them of their citizenship. Most of them, like these adult women, will have second citizenship in any case: Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen or wherever, be assured.ReplyDelete
Good article on this subject by Archbishop Cranmer.ReplyDelete
Yes, Archbishop Cranmer has a good piece here; he shows that by her actions she has renounced UK and its values, thus forfeits her UK rights. However, my point is different.Delete
The problem is more fundamental. The seeds were planted; the roots are with the families and ‘communities’. Teenagers do act recklessly, specially if they’re extremely repressed and looking for a cause.
This pregnant girl is a speck in the ocean. I just ask, is it ok for Britain to absorb four million third world immigrants who, to varying degrees, reject British / Judeo-Christian values, just as long as they keep relatively quiet about it?
Sue, and there's the question of why even take the risk of trying to absorb four million of such immigrants?Delete
The purported benefits according to the State Broadcaster have included the flimsy attractions of wider-ranging cuisine and workers for rNHS. The obvious downsides of overcrowding and being blown up are never mentioned.
Oz , the bigger downside is the weakening of our traditional values and beliefs and the ascendency of Islam and all that comes with it.Delete
It is already happening and will gather pace .
You're right of course...this is a dynamic process. Our population is growing at something like 500,000 per annum*! Chain migration is a huge unrecognised issue. So is the welfare-enabled birth rate in some communities.
Overcrowding in London is out of control. The local trains are nearly all in a "rush hour" state nearly all through the day. Commuters often have to wait for two or three tube trains to pass before they can get on.
Meanwhile Sharia is advancing wherever you look. The Fatwa anniversary shows us how far we have travelled in 30 years. We now have, in effect and in law (via misnamed Equality legislation), an Islamic blasphemy law in place.
* Incidentally I am always amazed at our so called expert economists neglect this fact. The population is growing at something like 0.8% per annum and yet they never mention this when referring to economic growth. We need 0.8% growth minimum just to stand still.
I can think of one solution that would swiftly deal with this woman and her child once and for all.ReplyDelete
During the item someone mentioned that already 400 people had returned from ISIS to UK. Of course this alarming statement was not picked up on by the one dimensional Montague.ReplyDelete