Heckling the BBC's Dominic Casciani

 

The BBC's Dominic Casciani has been putting the case for Shamima Begum to be brought back to the UK. 

It's a point of view many hereabouts agree with, but I don't think a senior BBC reporter should be arguing it.

Of course, he'd probably say he's 'only reporting' it. But I'm going to post a transcription of his report. The transcript is in bold and my comments are in italics and parentheses. I don't think he's 'only reporting' it at all.

What do you think? Isn't this advocacy?

***********

This is the story of how a 15-year-old girl ran away from home [beginning with a everyday family tragedy that everyone can relate to, a child running away from home], became an international terrorist [the balance!], and how her fight to return raises a fundamental question about justice. [Does it really? Or does it mainly raise it for those who want her brought back? And what precisely is that fundamental question?]

On a cold February morning in 2015 [A version of 'the pathetic fallacy'? Reinforcing the sadness of 'the child running away from home' story that we know so well], Shamima Begum left her home, here in Bethnal Green in London for the final time. She secretly flew to Turkey with two friends, and within days they'd been smuggled into Syria. They'd fallen for the propaganda [Shamima as victim, passively 'falling for' something. What about the vast majority of Muslim girls who didn't 'fall for' it? Isn't this disrespectful to them?] of the self-styled Islamic State group.

The militants told a well-crafted lie [reinforcing the 'They'd fallen for the propaganda' line]. 'Be part of our utopia' they said. Till you're shot or decapitated for disagreeing. And every Brit who joined them encouraged others to follow. [She's a Brit, reminder! And they all did it!] 'Leave your decadent western lifestyle behind' they said. 'Marry a foreign fighter, have babies!' And within a few weeks, Shamima Begum went from GCSEs to jihadi bride.

This Dutch fighter, seven years older, took her as his own. [Again the passive tense, her as victim]. It wasn't going to be happy ever after. [A phrase encouraging sympathy for her. What about her victims?]

The regime began to collapse as an international coalition bombed it to bits. Both Shamima's friends [note 'Shamima' not 'Begum' - Dom using her first name] are now believed to be dead. Her own babies, a boy and a girl, died within weeks of each other. [Shamima's children's tragically brief lives, Shamima as victim too]. And as 2018 ended, her thoughts finally turned to home and the country that she'd rejected [the other bit of balance]. 

[Clip of Shamima Begum saying, "I just want forgiveness really, from the UK. Like, everything I've been through, right, I didn't expect I would go through that and, you know, losing my children the way I lost them". [She famously say some unrepentant stuff too. This reinforced the woes outlined in the previous paragraph]]. 

Shamima Begum survived the fall of the self-styled Islamic State. Her third baby, born in the squalid camp that was now her home, didn't. [Shamima's children's tragically brief lives. Shamima as victim too]. And back here at Parliament, her interviews caused uproar.

[Clip of Sajid Javid saying, "They hate our country and the values that we stand for."

Shamima [first name again] said she wanted to come back home, but ministers said she was still a threat. And so they used an exceptional power to deprive her of her British citizenship. And that meant she could never get back in. That's been used more than 150 times against other terrorism suspects. Men like these:

[Clips of Jack Letts, El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexandra Kotey]

But this is where it gets legally complicated. The government took away Shamima's  [first name again] British citizenship because of her heritage. They said she could ask Bangladesh for a passport, but Bangladesh doesn't want her. She could even be hanged if she turned up. It was all going to end up in the courts. 

Shamima Begum is fighting to remain British. [Makes her sound patriotic!] Her lawyers say she's prepared to face justice, but she can't defend herself from a dangerous refugee camp in Northern Syria. [The case for the defence continues. Moody black-and-white images of the refugee camp projected to enhance the message].

And in July of this year the Court of Appeal ruled that "...The only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the United Kingdom..." [The defence wins a battle].

In short, fairness and justice must outweigh national security concerns, and that's why the case is now here, at the Supreme Court. [The case for the defence continues. Where's the opposing point of view: that the security of the British public should be prioritised?].

Under the law we're all entitled to a fair hearing before a judge, whether we're good or bad. [Who's 'all' as far as British law applies, and where does that apply? To declared non-British citizens in Syria? Is he paraphrasing here, or advocating?]

[Where's the other side, the case for the prosecution? Why is only one side of the argument being reported?]

But does that mean that the government should help Shamima Begum leave her camp to take part in this legal battle in London? Well, only the Supreme Court can now decide that. And its answer to that fundamental question of law is far bigger than the fate of Shamima Begum alone. [What is that far bigger question? We're still no nearer in learning precisely what it is. Daren't Dom state it straight out lest the public take exception to it?].

[No mention of claims she was a strict member of IS's brutal morality police. Or that she's said to have sewn suicide vests for terrorists. Seriously, why not?]

[Doesn't the appeal to the emotions, helped by the deliberate use of moody photography, reveal Dominic Casciani's hand.]

Cancel Shamima

I insist I’m neither doubling down nor moving the goalposts, but if you’ve read my previous post on Shamima Begum I hope you haven’t put me down as some sort of Guardian-reading apologist for  innocent young girls who run away to find adventure and romance by becoming jihadi brides.

On the contrary. I have very little sympathy for that particular individual. None whatsoever, really.

I had watched the Triggernometry video below before I spotted it in the comments and intended to post it myself.  If you listen to Dr Ella Hill’s account of her experience of being groomed, you’ll get an idea of why I think making a massive issue out of whether Ms Begum should be left to rot in Hell or let back here to plead her case   - which is not ‘for’ ISIS by the way, but against being stripped of her British citizenship - is a mistake. 

The fate of this one foolish woman pales into insignificance next to the broader issue of the folly of pandering to Islam. Or, as some would have it - to the ‘wrong kind’ of Islam. 

If the description of the twisted attitude that many Pakistani Muslim men hold towards Western women and culture isn’t shocking enough for the lawmakers and politicians, then the constraints put upon the police in the name of political correctness and racial/cultural sensitivities “There’s nothing we can do about it” should convince us all that things have already gone much too far. Watch it and despair.

“White slag, white whore, white c**t” “His idea of what a good Muslim was and a bad non-Muslim was, or a good believer and a bad unbeliever” 

“In the mind of these grooming gangs, if you’re not covered, down to your ankles, down to your wrists, if your hem doesn’t cover your knees, then you’re asking to be raped. 

Or if you’re not washing in the way you should wash as a good Muslim - if you’re eating pork you’re unclean or dirty - to use a knife and fork, you’re dirty if you don’t eat food with your hands - there’s lots of narrative within the grooming gangs which makes hatred of white people a justification for what they’re doing; and all the scriptural things like what they’re allowed to do once you’ve started your period that you can and can’t do. Before you’ve started your period you’ve got to do ‘thighing’ which is another type of sexual molestation which doesn’t involve penetration.”

If anyone truly believes that one token woman festering in a pit of her own making would mark an end to the matter, they’re clutching at straws. Stripping Begum of her British citizenship has already given tacit permission (for those that wish to do so) to depict her as a martyr.

Incidentally, Professor Alderman makes a case against the principle of stripping people of their British citizenship.

@AldermanGeo is making a good point here.

From @thetimes pic.twitter.com/eT4NVfq8Oy

— Norman Goldner (@nlygo) July 20, 2020

Whether Begum is made to stay or allowed to return, the likelihood is that the media will glorify her.  If she comes here and receives a lenient sentence, the media will very probably Nadia Hussain-ify her; by the look of the angelic picture in the Guardian, this is already happening.

 People can change. Look at Maajid Nawaz, a former member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Personally, I was one of the last people to accept his sincerity - and truth be told, I still have my reservations. Nevertheless, I regard Sahmima Begum as a completely lost cause and I think the media should do the thing they seem best at these days. 

Cancel her!

How do you solve a problem like Shamima?

Even the most admirable writers and influencers can, occasionally, disappoint. It’s difficult to admit to oneself that there’s a flaw in the argument of someone for whom you have the utmost respect and admiration. 

I hate to say this, but I have reservations about Douglas Murray’s article in UnHerd about Shamima Begum. 

Shamima Begum will never leave Britain By Douglas Murray.

The former ISIS bride has been allowed to appeal the decision to strip her of citizenship. But whatever happens, we lose. 

Yes indeed. If she comes back, surely she can't ever be expelled. Everything he says up to a certain point is 100% a-okay with me. Then, towards the end,  I find this:

She and her cohorts waged war against this country and our allies; they lost, and by the most fundamental laws of justice and war they should have lost everything.

While that uncompromising argument seems perfectly fine when applied to the spurious Palestinian claim (so-called Right of Return) - that they lost a war of intended annihilation that they themselves started - so tough!

 

But that principle seems hypocritical when applied to Begum. Why? Because he’s effectively saying “Rot in hell you evil bitch - lie in the bed you created” and that uncompromising, harsh, inflexibility is all too reminiscent of radical Islam itself. 

I might be saying something Michelle Obama-ish, like “When you go low, we go high”,  but mirroring the rigid, inhumane and unforgiving characteristics of Islam seems like the wrong way of dealing with the problem.

I must admit that I have some sympathy with a commenter who received an onslaught of hostile, reactionary responses to his contributions. I think his argument deserves more than an avalanche of disparaging and not particularly original thoughts. I hope the author ‘Robin P Clark” will forgive me if I reproduce his comments, which include many worthwhile points, for your information.

“For the first time I have to disagree, totally, with Douglas Murray. He fails to grasp the point that this war is different. Because it is a continuation of the jihad started by an Arabian warlord 14 centuries ago. As part of the biggest hoax in history.

Here is a little education for Mr Murray, which they probably forgot to mention at Oxford. Our civilisation, Western Christendom, was founded on Christianity. A most fundamental tenet of which is: "Forgive your enemies because they do not know what they do". And I don't propose to reckon to know better than 2000-year-old wisdom.

Some people like to be nasty. They kick you for their amusement. They are criminals.

But the Jihadists are not criminals. They are deluded. Their delusion is that the Islam hoax started by the Arabian warlord is the one true good religion.

These terrorists and other jihadists do not need punishment. They need therapy. In particular, they need telling the truth about Islam, that it is a hoax invented by a greedy man to enrich himself.

All those who collude with Islam in baselessly asserting that Islam is a peaceful and noble faith, including pretending to be "Professor of Islamic studies", while doing nothing to expose the exceptionally hateful violence-inciting nature of the Qur'an, are themselves complicit in the huge record of nasty things that have been done and still are being done in the name of this ideology unfit for humans.

Shamima Begum is a victim. A victim of all those who defend Islam as something to be respected. And there are too many of those in high places in this country, not least so-called Lord ****, whose only response to my pointing out to him the facts about Islam was to report my "offence" to the police (so much for his asserted tolerance of divergent views). And Baroness *****, who repeatedly asserted that the terrorists were not the real Islam, yet could never be bothered to engage with the clear evidence that they are. The blood is on such people's hands, whether they intended it or not. But again, "forgive them because they know not what they do".

Less hostile intolerant punishment, more understanding and honest telling of the necessary truths. We are at war not with guns, but with deluded beliefs. No amount of imprisonment and punishment is going to defeat those beliefs. Meanwhile Islam is already in crisis from everyone now being able to read its reportedly perfect Qur'an and many courageous people telling the truth about it. More of those voices, and an end to all the persecution and censorship against pretended "Islamophobia" is what is needed.

 and later:

Mr Murray's grasp of history also appears to be less than comprehensive. There were natives of same states on opposite sides in the 1683 Battle of Vienna, one of the most important events in history (and Europe may well have not survived the Jihad otherwise). Needless to say, no-one learns about it in our "education" system....

"The attraction of war was always the same. Men and women of violence could take what they wanted by force."

Utter nonsense. The Jihadists make clear that they are simply following the commands of the Qur'an to fight those who disbelieve. The Qur'an acknowledged in several verses that the Warlord's subjects would prefer not to join that fighting:

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.” [2:216]
“Have you not seen those unto whom it was said: Withhold your hands and establish worship and pay the poor-due? But when fighting was prescribed for them, behold! a party of them fear mankind even as they fear Allah or with greater fear, and they say: Our Lord! why have you ordained fighting for us? If only you would give us respite for a while. I Say: The comfort of this world is scant; the Hereafter will be better for he who wards off evil.” [4:77]

One could be put off by the somewhat arrogant language with which he addresses Douglas Murray, but his insights into Islam itself deserve to be given due consideration and respect.

 So what’s the answer? How do you solve a problem like Shamima?  

For one thing - slightly deviating from my own unanswerable question - it is being argued by Begum’s lawyers that the school or the authorities in question must take responsibility for not having warned the families that their daughters were ‘being radicalised’. Well, if I remember correctly, the families were pretty much  ‘radicalised’ themselves. 

Prescribing a dose of harsh, retributory punishment seems to me like doing the very thing you condemn in others.  Giving your foe a taste of their own medicine might offer a certain amount of gratification, but when specifically dealing with an ideology that is beyond reason, which Islam surely is, creating martyrs isn’t much of a deterrent; in fact, it’s the opposite. I think the term is 'recruiting Sargeant' (!)

 

I had an email disagreement with Melanie Phillips once, in 2008, about ‘smacking’. She was against bringing in a ‘no smacking’ law and I was in favour. I’m very likely on my own (politically homeless) there, too. I won’t go into it now - but suffice it to say my offspring (grown-up) won’t be perpetuating any form of corporal punishment, as the “Smacking never did me any harm” brigade are wont to do. The anti-smacking philosophy is constantly misrepresented and misunderstood, and I’m willing to expand on it any time you like. (Other than now)

If you’re going to boil these arguments right down to the bone, we seem to end up with ‘might is right’.  Which (sadly) puts me in the wrong. Or does it?

 

It seems the problem is far deeper than just whether or not a brainwashed young woman deserves to be allowed back to the UK. The big mistake was ever allowing Islam to seduce us. ‘Woke’ is the least appropriate term for permanently sleepwalking useful idiots. 

The Blair Government’s cynical and (transiently self-serving) immigration policy has one hell of a lot to answer for. 

Begum yet more questions

The BBC and Sky were immensely proud of their Shamima Begum 'scoops'. They'd got to speak to her, interview her and report her comments, plus the pleas of her family and her jihadi husband on her behalf.

But tonight it's The Sunday Telegraph and the Mail on Sunday who appear to have really taken the story forward and cast serious doubts on her claim to have been an innocent abroad - a mere jihadi bride.

The Sunday Telegraph reports "well-placed" Syrian sources, some of whose claims (they say) have been confirmed by Western intelligence, stating that Miss Begum was well-known as brutal enforcer in IS's morality police, in which she served for seven months. They say she carried a Kalashnikov rifle, and is "likely to have ordered the imprisonment and lashing of local women in Raqqa who were deemed not to be observing its dress code or were caught travelling without a male guardian." The sources also say she played an active role in recruiting other women to IS's cause. 

Meanwhile, the Mail on Sunday reports that British "spy chiefs" told Theresa May and Sajid Javid that Shamima Begum was witnessed stitching suicide bombers into explosive vests during the siege of Raqqa, meaning they couldn’t be taken off without detonating - information said to be gleaned from the CIA and the Dutch intelligence service. 

How will the BBC report this (especially having not got these scoops)?

Martine Croxall (her top is red because of her bleeding heart)

Update: Ah, I see the first paper review on the BBC News Channel tonight has discussed it. BBC presenter Martine Croxall's contribution was to instantly parrot the familiar BBC line on the story:

There are a lot of people saying, look, if she's done something wrong get her back here, put her on trial, and also she was only 15 when she went.

(Typically for a BBC paper review both paper reviewers said "that's right" to that).

I think you'll find Martine that even more people aren't saying "get her back here".

Further Update: In the second paper review, Martine didn't need to bring up her first point again because both of her left-leaning guests made it for it, but she did bring back her second point: "Complication here is how young she was when she went to Syria". And then, in a sad tone of voice, "But she also had two babies she said while she was in Syria, both of whom died" and, exuding sympathy, "You'd have thought people would have been watching out for them [the three Bethnal Green girls as they fled the UK to join IS]...girls who were so young". A remarkable performance from Martine. She could hardly have been more on Shamima Begum's side, short of wearing a 'Bring back Shamima" t-shirt.

Breaking News!!

Breaking News!!

Rolling Banner: "Shamima Begum’s mother has written to the Home Office asking it to reconsider the decision to remove Shamima Begum's citizenship."

“Comments could be going better” (as some people say).

Begum the question

The opening discussion on this morning's Sunday programme has attracted interest. 

StewGreen, for example, characterised the discussion as being a ‘Bring them home Muslim’ vs a ‘Keep em out Muslim’, the latter being in favour of deprogramming camps “on the Turkish border or in Cyprus”. 

I thought Ismael South (the latter) was a thoughtful, engaging fellow but he did cast Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins as bogey-people, and the main reason for not letting Shamima Begum & her elk/ilk back into the country was that it would help their cause. 

(WTF...those 2 don’t do anything wrong, they are not terrorists", commented Stew to that.)

William Crawley was, of course, very BBC throughout.

Here's a transcript.

[My transcription was done with the help of TV Eyes - not that TV Eyes works well for radio. It kept mishearing the name 'Shamima Begum' and came up with several best-guesses: 'Jimmy Bacon', 'shimmy of bacon', 'some bacon' and 'mum Baker MPs'. ]

*******

William Crawley: The death of Shamima Begum's baby son has reignited a political row and a moral debate about the Home Secretary's decision to revoke the 19 year-old British citizenship for travelling to Syria to join the Islamic State terror group. Miqdaad Versi is with us from the Muslim Council of Britain. Miqdaad, good morning to you and welcome. And, as you've just heard in the news bulletin, it's also been reported today by some of the Sunday papers that two more jihadi brides from the UK have been stripped of their citizenship, apparently living in refugee camps in Syria and being named this morning as Reema Iqbal and her sister Zara Iqbal. What's been the reaction within the Muslim community here to this unfolding and developing story?

Miqdaad Versi: I think that, in general with most of these issues, the reaction within the Muslim community is always mixed. There will be different perspectives across the country. But what's really important is that we as a country look and consider our commitment to justice and the rule of law in these areas. We have to be very careful about what the implications are of removing citizenship of those who happened to have dual nationality, which affects minority communities disproportionately. It will mean that those who have dual nationality - you know, especially those from the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities - will feel and have expressed the view that their nationality as a British citizen is somehow less than others and they have fewer rights than everybody else. And that's something that is not ideal for our society

William Crawley: I see in The Observer today the Bishop of St Albans, Dr. Alan Smith, being cited and quoted saying "This is a human rights issue" and challenging the Home Secretary's decision to exclude Shamima Begum from the UK by taking away her citizenship. Do you share that sentiment that this is a human rights-focused issue?

Miqdaad Versi: I think we agree entirely. Human rights, the rule of law and justice are core principles for all of us, and it's important that the actions that are taken are those that are in the national interest and in line with the values that we believe in as a society and aren't in view of specific choices that are made by a Home Secretary for whatever reason that might help their own personal ambition. We can't know that for a fact. What we have to care about more, what we have to ensure is the case, that this is about the rule of law, justice and our commitment to human rights.

William Crawley: Let me also welcome Ismael South to the Sunday studio, director of the Salam project - a youth and community initiative. Good to see you. Good morning to you. And big questions today also about the potential implications in the United Kingdom for deradicalisation work of the kind you've been involved in in response to this case. Are their implications?

Ismael South: Definitely there are implications, but what it is that I would like to put across there, Shemima Begum and these two that you heard about today, according to our research, there's over 450 British people in prison camps, in Kurdish prison camps, around Syria. And not only that, there's thousands more from around Europe, thousands more including America, Oceania (that's Australia and New Zealand). And I believe the way...yes, we might not agree with what the Home Secretary has done but the reality is that we need to look at the solutions, because there's over 400 British citizens who are stuck in Syria. So I believe, because the British Muslim charities, they make over a billion pounds a year in the UK. Those are British Muslim charities. The top 40 British Muslims charities make over a billion pounds a year. And if we all be honest, around 35% of that is due to red tape and waste. So I believe if Sajid Javid and Theresa May want to look at a solution, not little plasters, if they were to ask the heads of these top 40 Muslim charities and say, look, we can have a facility on the Turkish border or in Cyprus and we want you to pay for it, and this is a place where these people can be debriefed, they could be used for Intel, counselled (because they're going to be suffering from trauma) and they could be risk-assessed and they could be utilised for research, and they also can be facilitated through various deradicalisation projects...

William Crawley: (interrupting) Alright, so you're suggesting that that should be done there, as it were? You're not, you're not, supporting bringing these people back to this country?

Ismael South: To be straight with you, I'm 50/50, because I see both sides. I believe if Shemima Begum was brought here to the UK it would give more power to people like Tommy Robinson Katie Hopkins, that type of elk, because they would use that as a horse, as a Trojan horse, to promote their rhetoric. And I believe... 

William Crawley: (interrupting) Can I  just bring Miqdaad Versi in on that?

Ismael South: Yes.

William Crawley: Just to test where you are on that question, Miqdaad. Do you agree with that?

Miqdaad Versi: I appreciate that perspective but I think that our commitment to the rule of law has to take priority over those perspectives. For example, someone like Anjem Choudary - an individual who is considered quite...massively negatively across all Muslims communities and across the country as a whole. He come out of prison. Like, should he have been kept in prison because it would have been "good" for Muslim communities or would have stopped Tommy Robinson and his ilk, etc. We shouldn't, of course we shouldn't do that. We need to follow the rule of law because those are the things...the commitment to justice, human rights, the rule of law, that's what makes us as a country. We should not be some stopping these values just because of these individuals. It doesn't make sense...

William Crawley: (interrupting) Ismael, very briefly?

Ismael South: With respect to Miqdaad Versi...I love Miqdaad Versi. He's a good man. He's done a lot of good work, and is very intellectual, but if it was up to me people like Anjem Choudary, his passport would be revoked and I would ship him back somewhere else because he's caused so much destruction, so much rifting communities, he's broken up so many families, and he makes it harder for Muslim communities around the UK.

William Crawley: Ismael South, thank you very much. Thanks also to Miqdaad Versi from the Muslim Council of Britain.. 

Three Takes on the Same Story

Daniel Sandford

Comparing last night's 10 o'clock news bulletins, both the BBC and Sky led with the death of Shamima Begum's baby son while ITV led with Brexit. ITV placed the Shamima Begum story third in its running order, giving it only one-and-a-half minutes. 

Several things struck me about the three broadcasters' respective coverage of the Shamima Begum story:

Firstly, as far as balancing non-BBC 'talking heads' goes, ITV didn't feature any, Sky featured a supporter of the UK government's role (Bob Seely MP) and the BBC featured a critic of the UK government's role (Dal Babu), so the BBC's was the most tilted towards the supporters of Shamima Begum in this respect.

Secondly, the BBC was the only one of the three broadcasters to refer to her as "Shamima" (twice), while both ITV and Sky stuck to the more formal "Shamima Begum" throughout. 

Thirdly, the illustrative images from the Syrian camp shown on Sky focused on the fully-veiled Islamic State women of the camp while the images shown on the BBC focused (to a remarkable degree) on images of the children in the camp. Thus, Sky (in the report by John Sparks) illustrated life in the camp with the following footage:

...while the BBC (in the report by Daniel Sandford) illustrated life in the camp with this footage:

A manipulative choice of accompanying images/footage, especially if it involves vulnerable children, is often a telltale sign of bias.

Fourthly, the BBC's main reporter, Daniel Sandford, went much further than his ITV and Sky counterparts in editorialising rather than merely reporting the story:

At first, it seemed politically convenient to make life difficult for Shamima Begum, there were a lot of political downsides to helping her and her baby to come home and a lot of political upside for the Home Secretary to be tough and say we are not going to help these people that went out to join Islamic State. The problem is that now this little boy has died, there are some quite strong political risks. Save the Children are saying these people need to be treated much more humanely. And the Government's position that it is impossible to get people out of these camps because it is too dangerous, is repeatedly shown to be not entirely accurate because British journalists and other foreign journalists are able to get to these camps relatively safely and go and see people, and working with the Red Crescent, it should be possible to get people from the camps if there was the political will. I think tonight, there is some sign the Government knows it is in a little bit of a problem, a government spokesman statement tonight said that the death of any child is tragic and deeply distressing for the family. So some acknowledgement that there has been a tragic event here. 

Of the three broadcasters, the BBC was (by some margin) clearly the most critical of the UK government and sympathetic to Shamima Begum. 

How in any way is that acceptable?

It was BBC man-of-the-moment Quentin Sommerville who got the 'scoop' today, interviewing Dutch paedophile Yago Riedijk.

(Quentin merely described him  as a "Dutch extremist").

Mr. Riedijk turned Muslim some time back and went off to fight for the genocidal Islamic death cult known as IS, and is best known as the ISIS groom who married comfortable-with-seeing-lots-of-heads-in-baskets jihadette Shemima Begum. 

Some, on Twitter, are pleading with Quentin and the BBC to stop giving such people the oxygen of publicity, but a scoop's a scoop. 

And Quentin did ask him about how he could justifying marrying a 15-year-old girl while he was aged 23. To be honest, I wasn't really interested, but she was, and she chose to marry and then I chose to marry her, he said.

And then he had three children with her.

Nice. 

And this paedophile's plea is STILL leading the BBC News website:

Tracking of an Eagle

TrueToo, over at Biased BBC, has just posted a short YouTube video of an edited BBC interview with Shamima Begum, commenting:

This Shamama Begum creature had a tough interview. Dunno who did the interview – perhaps someone here recognizes the guy.  

Can this interview really be from BBC news? If so, they must have fired the guy ten seconds later.

The BBC reporter in question is Quentin Sommerville, who's been the BBC's main man as far as this story goes.

I've followed him on Twitter for some time. His views on most subjects are, as is so often the case. 'very BBC', and I was (eventually) highly sceptical about his Big Scoop of 2017. But he's still a brave reporter and goes to places very few of his BBC colleagues now dare to tread, and he has even been known to voice an occasional non-BBC opinion.

And his Twitter feed is useful for re-tweeting gems like this:

Eeh Begum

Also according to the BBC....

Right?

Sunday Programme featured another interview with Tanya Joya. (Scroll to 25:19) Once again, she reinforced the points I made earlier about the family’s culpability in this epidemic of radicalisation. These families and ‘communities’ are just as responsible for their children’s propensity to rebel or ‘break out’ as any other families whose over-strict, oppressive and repressive regimes produce in their offspring, pressure-cooker style; unhappiness, rebellion, criminality and general antisocial behaviour. 

“You live without romance, without sex till you marry, have children, have grandchildren, you die.” 

says Tania by way of an explanation for this behaviour. If there’s any cure for this self-inflicted societal problem imposed upon this country by the Blair government (and I don’t really think there is) then it’s only by whole families receiving ‘de-radicalising’ in the form of family therapy or whole-community re-habilitation.  Not a compulsory time-limited course of once-a-week classes to be endured and forgotten, perhaps with a spot of community service thrown in in lieu of pay-back.

I really didn’t know this, but I now see that Shamima’s father lives in Bangladesh. So much for the stable family background.

father figure

I read a terrific piece in the Spectator (£) by Douglas Murray in which he cited many of the references I made in one of my previous posts. I wish I could flatter myself that he had read my article. I wish -  but spot the convergence.

***********

In the void created by the 10am start of the Andrew Marr show, one can be forced to watch Sophy Ridge. We all know she’s just ‘pretending’, like a little girl dressed up in her mother’s clothes. If you can get over that, (I couldn’t) you’ll have concentrated on her conversation with Barry Gardiner.

Fresh from his tearful contribution to last Wednesdays’ antisemitism debate in the HoC, a reptilian Gardiner now admits that the only one of his ex-Labour Party colleagues he believes to be genuine when citing antisemitism as a factor in their decision to defect is Luciana Berger. Does he doubt even Joan Ryan’s sincerity? 

Barry Gardiner he says, other than Luciana Berger, he doesn't believe antisemitism is "the sole focus" of the rest of the former Labour MPs who have joined the Independent Group of MPs #Ridge

Follow live updates on today's politics news here: https://t.co/KkPO32hAs9 pic.twitter.com/oMUzFMVUst

— Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) February 24, 2019

While we’re on the subject of pressure cookers, Gardiner’s exaggeratedly measured delivery gives the impression of someone sitting on an impending explosion. At the end of an interview, his tetchy “Right?” reminded me of Jeremy Corbyn at his most irritable when, with a menacing stare, he croaks “Can I finish?”

The Labour Party’s concept of antisemitism is confined to stereotypical tried and tested tropes and memes. “Bankers” “Controlling the world” “Hook-nosed”, and various sad old slogans. They’re watching out for jackboots, swastikas and the Heil-Hitler salute. 

It’s Zionism that they have a problem with. Somebody from the Guardian has gone to Luciana Berger's constituency, Wavertree, to get an idea of what her constituents think. Of course, we can’t be sure whether this is a fair representation, or a cherry-picked, Guardianista/BBC type agenda driven exercise, but this is what I mean:

“To judge by the area’s recent political dramas, it’s a phrase that hasn’t gone out of fashion. Last week, the constituency’s sitting MP, Luciana Berger, announced that she was quitting the Labour party to join the Independent Group. Among the reasons she gave for leaving was growing antisemitism within Labour.”

The vox pop format continues and clearly demonstrates a combination of a profound lack of interest in antisemitism because “no dog in the fight”,  a fistful of old fashioned conspiracy theories and, most significant, a well embedded and completely misinformed and passionate pro-Palestinianism.  

“Stephen Brown, who supplements his pension by selling sausages to the local pubs, also said he was sad Berger was gone. “She didn’t deserve to be treated that way,” he said, adding as an unthinking afterthought, “even though she is Jewish.” 

Like most people I encountered, Brown is a diehard Labour supporter, but not one particularly aware of antisemitic issues, including his own. “I’ve got nothing against Jeremy Corbyn,” he said, “but he got into bed with the wrong Jews.” What did that mean? “The high rollers,” he explained. 

Though sympathy for Berger was common, almost no one I spoke to had a good word to say about Hatton. Michael, a builder in a baseball cap, thought he was untrustworthy. He didn’t know about his tweet, but he said: “I work with Jews in the building business, and they’re lovely people. Then, when you’re in the pub with your friends, someone will talk about the Jews, the Rothschilds and all that.” 

Anne Maloney, a retired teacher who lives in one of the elegant houses, is not a party member, but she’s a loyal Labour voter. What did she make of Berger as an MP? “I wrote to her once,” she told me. 

What about? “Palestine. I firmly believe Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territories. She wrote back saying she supported the Palestinian people. But I didn’t think she was campaigning for the Palestinians. The problem is any criticism of Israel is always seen as antisemitism.” 

Her neighbour, a woman in her 40s who didn’t want to give her name, concurred. She said that she voted Green and had never agreed with Derek Hatton but, as a supporter of the Palestinians, she couldn’t see what was wrong with his tweet. Had she read it? “A summary of it, yes.” 

The original wasn’t long. It stated: “Jewish people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel!”

Ruthless murdering? No wonder they hate the wrong kind of Jews. The Zionist ones. The Jews that the BBC has been indirectly and disingenuously demonising for the last half a dozen decades, by simply missing out all references to the religious bigotry that fuels the Palestinians’ racism and the provocative aggression that arises from it.

Where Israel is concerned, these misinformed activists and their puppeteer churnalists in the MSM are like royalists who are more royalist than the actual King.  They are just as responsible for perpetuating the ‘Palestinian cause’ which is ultimately to replace the thriving Jewish state with yet another failed Islamic one as any of your common or garden racist antisemites.  

So I can only echo Barry Gardiner with a very tetchy “Right!” 

"Thoughts are my own"

I’m used to finding myself in a minority, and I’m probably in a minority over the Shamima Begum fiasco, but I find myself agreeing with all sorts of contradictory arguments from a whole lot of people I don’t normally agree with. 

Was Sajid Javid playing to the gallery with his hasty revocation of Ms Begum’s citizenship? 

Obviously, it resonates with public opinion, but if you think about it, what’s a Muslim Home secretary to do? Damned if he does; damned if he doesn’t.

It’s illegal to make anyone stateless; the Today Programme’s expert de jour said Javid’s decision couldn’t possibly be legal, as Bangladesh denies Ms Begum’s existing citizenship and rejects the possibility of her obtaining any in future. 

Is Javid playing a long game, knowing she’ll win her appeal? Is it his heavy-handed bid for promotion? Who’s paying for the legal fees? An Islamic charity? Crowdfunding? Anyone?) Ah! Tasnime Mohammed Akunjee is offering his services pro bono. (But surely more legal costs will be accrued than just his.)

The Begum family’s lawyer, Tasnime Mohammed Akunjee, has been speaking on the BBC. 

This piece in the Telegraph reveals a few of his best bits - his past statements and affiliations so you can get a picture of where he’s coming from. (9/11 was an inside job; has links to  Cage; wants Amber Rudd to find herself in a concentration camp; wants to ban products decorated with union jack; blames security services for ‘creating’ Lee Rigby’s killer by making life difficult for him; has been pictured with Jeremy Corbyn)

Another prominent Muslim individual has also spoken again on the Today Programme recently. Ex-police chief Dal Babu, who suffers from a heavy ’racial’ chip on his shoulder and describes himself as a friend of the family. He repeated the observations he’s made previously on the BBC, blaming the authorities (the police, the school and “Tower Hamlets”) for not telling the parents that their daughters were being groomed and radicalised, though he knows the authorities were well aware that this was happening. Had the girls’ parents known, he claimed, they would have stopped them from travelling. (I understand Shamima, at least, stole her sister’s passport to travel.) 

Again he mentioned the infamous warning letter, meant for the parents, that was found in the schoolbag too late. None of these points reflects very well on the quality of parenting. Perhaps they were all completely ignorant of their daughters’ religious proclivities or they were aware, and sympathetic, like Hassem Abase.

There is some confusion. I understand that another girl with a similar first name and also a ‘Begum’  was one of the influencers/groomers that enticed the girls to flee to Syria. She was the girl who was born in Bangladesh, and she was the one whose mother had died. Shamima’s (Bangladeshi) mother is alive, and Shamima was born in the UK. 

I listened to the Moral Maze. I was sorry Melanie Phillips wasn’t there. Clare Fox, Anne McElvoy, Mona Siddiqui (definitely the best of the lot) and Giles Fraser wrestled with Myriam Francoise Cerrah, formerly one of the BBC’s The Big Questions’ favourite Muslims and the most annoyingly sanctimonious person you’d ever wish to clap eyes on, and Haras Rafiq as well as Richard (Counter Terrorism) Walton. It arrived at little or no satisfactory conclusion.

The argument for allowing Begum and child back to face ‘due process’ hinges on the vagueness of what constitutes substantive evidence. “What am I supposed to have done?” “ I’ve only been a housewife” and so on.

If she hasn’t committed any actual violence and is merely an ‘enabler’ can she be convicted of anything much? It looks doubtful. On the other hand, if she’s left to the mercy of fate, what about the baby, who is technically British? 

Some so-called experts say these people can never be genuinely un-radicalised. I don’t know about that - lingering tribalism is one reason why I’m still a tiny bit wary of Maajid Nawaz. On the other hand, look at Mosab Hassan Yousef aka Son of Hamas. He seems like a genuine, thoroughly un-radicalised guy. But was he ever radicalised in the first place, or was he one of those rare individuals who was born with innate curiosity and cynicism?

Anyway, I still don’t think Shamima Begum’s fate is the most important issue. It seems like an inordinate waste of time and money, endlessly anguishing over that one individual. By all means, keep her away from the public, but let’s focus on the real problem, which is the Islamification of the west. 

God, if only Tommy Robinson would stop using the word Mumpf  instead of the conventional ‘month’ and start pronouncing ‘anything’ and ‘everything’ without the emphatic, nay, percussive k at the end, he might acquire the credibility that prevents people like Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips viewing him with a kind of classist disdain. Join forces! Tommy’s got the chutzpah and the pugilistic derring-do and you’ve got the eloquence and education.

I myself am a terrible snob - but not a classist-type snob.  (Can you be snobbish about the abject stupidity of stupid people who think they’re clever?)  If so, I’m either that kind of snob, or I’m actually that kind of person. Or both. (Don’t tell me which one you think fits best) 

Tanya Joya

Here's the transcript of Martha Kearney's interview with Tanya Joya for your information. It's as accurate as I could manage. 

MK

You’ll have heard the home secretary vowing to do anything in his power to prevent people who went to Syria to join so-called Islamic State from returning to the UK. Shamima  Begun who joined IS at the age of 15 has been appealing to the authorities to come back with her newborn baby.  One woman who understands what that’s like is Tania Joya https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-former-first-lady-of-isis-now-loves-reform-jews-plans-to-visit-jerusalem/ who was once nicknamed ‘the first lady of ISIS’ after marrying an American Jihadi. She grew up in Harrow in north London and now lives in Texas after fleeing from Syria with her three children.

TJ

I understand that she’s a product of her environment. What’s typical of Bengali Muslim families is that we prioritise religious norms and rules and we don’t discuss at home the rule of law and respecting due process. It’s more about mysticism, (which we know we can’t (?) ) understand and it’s about God and they use it to control girls and the men use it to control women and, communities and it comes like that.

MK 


Is that what happened to you do you think?

TJ

It did happen to me because I moved from Harrow to Barking, and Barking is a hot pocket for extremists, but my parents, they’re from a generation that wasn’t too interested in religion, but it was cultural, so it wasn’t until they - after September 11th, like, I went away in 2003 to Syria and then I didn’t see my family for ten years and when I came back they were all really religious. And what was so ironic is that I stopped being a Muslim and I took off the hijab and things while after going to Muslim countries, to lived there, and I got turned off even more, and then I came back to London and all my family were practising and suddenly very strict on themselves and I noticed it wasn’t just my family, like, in London, in general, became a lot more… Islamic. (laughter)..it’s peculiar.

MK


What was life like for you when you went to Syria?

TJ

So I’ve been to Syria three times, before the war to Damascus and it was lovely, but it’s not  like going back in time because they were so hard back from the rest of the world, so I left….everything was nice then, but when my husband took me the first time against my will and I wasn’t ready to do that, to go to Syria during a war because I had children and I was pregnant and I wasn’t ready to see my children die, so yeah, I went into - it was a war zone - I got a taste of hell and I knew I wasn’t going to put up with it, not for my husband, any more.

MK


When you heard what Shamima Begum has been saying since she left life under so-called Islamic State, what do you think about the kind of things she’s been saying - she’s come under criticism from some people, for not expressing enough remorse

TJ

Yes. I mean who wouldn’t be frustrated, it’s like a parent/teenager relationship - teenagers are obnoxious, and they’re not really fully formed in their maturity, She doesn’t know what to think. Everything she’s saying, she’s just a mouthpiece for Islamic State. She’s just repeating what she’s been told she has to say. She doesn’t have her own thoughts because she doesn’t know anything different, she hasn’t had enough exposure. That’s what I believe.

MK

She has caused some offence in this country by making comparisons between the Manchester Arena attack on the Ariana Grande fans and the kind of bombings that took place in Syria.

TJ

I think, with these people, their understanding of life is warped. They don’t believe this life is real. they think it’s temporary, like a dream, like as insignificant as a dream; they think the real, life, the eternal life, starts after death. So they’re delusional, they’re living out this fantasy cos at one point in their life I believe they want to escape reality, and we have to get them out of that mindset because it’s very dangerous. It’s important that these people learn that you live once. And you have to respect life. You just don’t think oh, I’m going to kill a child, it’s ok because he’s going to come back alive in heaven because we don’t have a   ? in our religion. We don’t have to crack their way of thinking as they don’t know how to think straight.

MK

So what do you think should happen now to Shamima Begum?

TJ

I think the most humanitarian thing we can do is help her child, and we don’t want to separate mother and child, and she is a British citizen and she has rights and we’re going to show her due process and show her what justice is because she thinks a draconian lifestyle is justice, but it’s not; and she’ll learn that. She’ll mature, and she’ll learn where she’s gone wrong. She’s a smarter teenager than I was so I know she’s going to learn if she’s open to it, and I believe she’s just going to grow out of it eventually

MK


Although you’ll have heard what the Home Secretary Sajid Javid has been saying, he says whatever role the role who went to Syria took in the so-called caliphate they all supported a terrorist organisation and in doing so they’ve shown that they hate our country and the values we stand for.

TJ

He’s right, and he’s entitled to his views, but I don’t know if he’s a practising Muslim and I shouldn’t really judge him, whether he is or not, but there’s a child involved and now we know better, now we know she has an innocent life on the line, we can’t say ok you just have to die cos your mum was a 

foolish girl. We can do better. We can bring them back and we can show them how western values are more compassionate to humans than Islamic law.

What The Papers (don't) Say

The British press has really gone to town on Shamima Begum’s plea for sympathy. Indeed, it is outrageous that she entertains such expectations while remaining so steadfastly unrepentant. 

“‘Show me some sympathy,” says the Telegraph, “I deserve sympathy,” shouts the Metro; the Mirror goes with “I had a good time” and The Sun goes with the cheeky ”Sympathy? You must be kidding”

By splashing those headlines in gigantic lettering all these newspapers are obviously wallowing in it.  They’re championing UK values! Echoing the will of the people! Speaking for the country!  

That may well be true - I suspect that many, many people think she should rot in hell. But here’s the thing. Do we know, in legal terms, what constitutes the ‘uman rights of a clearly disloyal (but technically still British) citizen whose actions signify the willful renunciation of her British identity? The lawyers seem to think there are no legal grounds to block her return. 

And look, if we’re obliged to prioritise the “right to a family life” of murderers and illegals who plead that they’ve set up home with a cat, why not a brainwashed abaya-clad Jihadi with a newborn baby and a loving Muslim family back home who are very likely just as ideologically traitorous as their daughter, but have the brains to realise on which side their bread is buttered.

At the time they absconded, the press were keen to emphasise the academic prowess of the three girls. They said they’d been amongst the school’s high flyers. But if she hasn’t even worked out that a tiny bit of contrition would help her case, Shamima Begum seems to be rather thick. Unless it’s a double bluff, and she realises that too much regret would sound a little insincere. 

That shot of a black-gloved hand stroking that one-day-old baby was intensely creepy. 

I find the press’s approach cheap and lazy. I see the whole lot of them as pandering to the baying mob in a particularly cowardly way. This is why. Shamima Begun’s plea for sympathy was not the revelation. The press ignored the most revealing thing she said; they wouldn’t touch it with a barge-pole.  

There’s a transcript of the interview with John Sparks on the Sky website.

JS 

Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. 

SB 

Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.

Beheading people is allowed Islamically.   Islamically. That. Is.  Allowed!

If I were a newspaper editor that would be my headline, 4 inches high. Ten centimetres if you like.

But no. They wouldn’t bloody dare. 

A fleeing British teenager

Watching tonight's BBC One early evening news bulletin, I was struck by how it began:

The family of the British teenager who joined the Islamic State group, say she's given birth in Syria. Shamima Begum says she wants to return to the UK, after fleeing the last IS stronghold. It comes as President Trump calls on Britain and other European nations to put captured Islamic State fighters on trial.

Hmm, a "fleeing...British teenager" whose just given birth and who wants to return to the UK? 

Interesting language there, I think. 

And, of course, I'd have said "captured Islamic State terrorists" rather than "captured Islamic State fighters", but that particular BBC linguistic tic has been with us so long you almost don't clock how obsessively 'neutral' it is anymore. 

And on it went:

Good afternoon. The family of Shamima Begum, one of three British school girls who left Britain to join the Islamic State group, say they've been told that she's given birth to a boy. The 19-year-old is living in a refugee camp in northern Syria, after fleeing the last IS stronghold in the eastern part of the country. Her family has asked the British government to help bring her home. It comes as President Trump has called for the UK and other European countries to take back hundreds of members of IS, captured in Syria and Iraq, and to put them on trial. Daniel Sandford reports.

Wonder what viewers new to the story would have made of that?

Anyhow, here's a transcript of Daniel Sandford's report and his subsequent chat with newsreader Tina Daheley. I was struck by how the two featured speakers - and even President Trump! - reinforced the 'bring her home' argument, as did the following BBC-on-BBC discussion:

Daniel Sandford: This morning came news from Shamima Begum's family she's given birth to a baby son in a refugee camp in northern Syria. It adds another layer of complication to the case of the schoolgirl who joined IS and now wants to come back. Shamima Begum first came to attention after leaving her home in East London with two school friends four years ago aged just 15. She married an IS fighter in Raqqa and had remained with the group until fleeing the fighting two weeks ago. Her family are asking the government to show compassion and help them get her home. The government has said that it won't hesitate to prevent people who went to join a terrorist group returning to Britain but concedes that people like Shamima Begum, who have only one nationality, may ultimately be allowed to come back.

Jeremy Wright MP: If you are dealing with a British citizen who wants to return to this country, and not a dual citizen, so their only citizenship is British citizenship, then we are obliged at some stage at least to take them back. That doesn't mean we can't put in place the necessary security measures to monitor their activities and make sure that they are not misbehaving. 

Today, President Trump called on Britain and other European countries to take back people who'd gone to fight for IS and put them on trial. He said 800 fighters had been captured, and if they were to be released, they might permeate Europe, as he put it. Raffaello Pantucci, who has been studying violent Islamists for years, says the government will probably have to shift its position of refusing to accept responsibility for any IS fighters.

Raffaello Pantucci: The UK needs to establish some sort of a process of what to do with its nationals that are out there. I think frankly they are the UK's responsibility and some sort of resolution does need to be established, a due process they can be put through. 

IS's last toehold in Syria, Baghuz, is slowly being reduced to rubble. There is a fledgling project in the UK for handling any women and children of IS who make it from here back to the UK called the Returning Families Project. So far, it's only dealt with a handful of cases and the funding runs out next month.
Tina Daheley: Well, Daniel's here with me now. How has Shamima Begum's baby changed the situation now?
Daniel Sandford: I think in the immediate term it doesn't change the situation. The British government have been fairly clear that they think it is too risky to try and help anybody who's in a refugee camp in northern Syria at the moment and I don't think they feel there's any rush. I think if the situation deteriorates in those refugee camps, very, very, seriously, or if the women and children in those camps are somehow turfed out into the desert the pressure might build. If on the other hand Shamima Begum was to make into to a place of safety like Turkey, for example, and try to make it to the British consulate, the fact she has a very, very newborn baby might force the British government to act a little bit more quickly than they might otherwise have done.
Tina Daheley: And in the case of EU governments, how concerned will they be about Donald Trump's threats?
Daniel Sandford:  Well, Donald Trump seems to be suggesting that the Kurdish allies of the US government and US troops on the ground might actually set free the Isis fighters in captivity. I think that seems unlikely, but I think this is a sign of the pressure that America is going to start applying on the European governments to take some of the IS fighters that have come originally from their countries and are now being held in captivity because certainly the Kurds there don't want to deal with them, the Americans don't want to deal with them, and someone's going to have to handle them and put those that can be put on trial, and otherwise deal with them in a way that they're not a threat to the public. And I think this is a sign of the pressure the Americans are starting to apply rather than a real threat to set them free next week, as it were.
Tina Daheley: Daniel, thank you very much.