An update - she has won the appeal and is to be allowed back to fight her case
I would imagine that, having entered the UK it would be very difficult to deport her back to Syria.
Impossible I would think but the UK argued that it had not made her stateless because she had Bangladeshi citizenship - apparently sheās not contesting that so perhaps it transpires that she does after all and that is where she will have to go if she ultimately loses.
I remain conflicted on this one - on the one hand she was groomed as a young girl, used and abused by ISIS as a baby factory and suffered the death of all three of her children as well as experiencing the full horror of the Syrian war.
On the other hand I would not put up much argument to those who suggested that it might be impossible to rehabilitate her back into UK society.
Seems simple enough to me. She is a British born citizen. If she wantās to come back and face the music for whatever crimes she may have been guilty of, there is no reason to prevent her.
They went and got Buster Edwards and brought him back against his will, FFS!
She is being allowed back to challenge the removal of her citizenship.
I guess if she wins that one she will then, indeed, face charges related to her escapade.
Either way it looks like her actions as a teenager, even if groomed, will destroy her life.
Has already, by all account she has lost two babies. Women donāt easily get over that.
Three, I believe.
If we believe she had those babies
It seems rather likely
Did you not hear from the Syrian police that she had three babies so it must be true?
Donāt you think this is a gruesomely low water-mark in the discussion of this young person and her tragic life?
Enough, please, I entreat you Eddie in the name of humanity.
From a humanitarian perspective Iām not sure that is the best decision.
Goes with the times though.
Inevitable decision though Paul, you canāt have one personās circumstances being given precedent over national security. This is not the end of this though and she may be able to contest the HSās ruling at a later date.
I rather agree about the inevitability, especially in the current political climate. I suspect that there is some concern about setting a precedent which might apply to other, similar, cases.
But we still have the fact that, as an impressionable 15 year old, she was almost certainly groomed and has gone through much (self-inflicted, I agree) hardship. We also have the fact that getting legal support and mounting an appeal regarding the removal of her citizenship will be an order of magnitude harder outside the UK.
She has had very little chance since birth. She was signed into a so-called religion by her parents and to reject it means to be an outcast and death. The community to which she belonged does not fit into British society or culture. They live in a bubble of Pakistan in England. Few of the elderly speak English and it is not the first language taught at home. They choose to exclude themselves from British culture and society. The life of ordinary women is that of the dark ages. Yes, she was stupid but she was brainwashed from birth - in my opinion, abuse. She should be allowed to return to the UK, and with just cause face court and serve a prison sentence if found guilty. Then there will be a chance that she will change and lead a free and decent life hopefully helping others break free of the hatred instilled into them from birth.
Why āso calledā?
Because if you study the adaptation of Islam followed by the Pakistani community it can be considered more of a cult than a religion, I will admit that in my view no child should be signed up at birth by their parents to any religion. It denies them the basic right of choice.
It depends - if, as I suspect is true for most Brits, āsubscribingā involves putting āC of Eā on the birth certificate and then the only time the child attends church is for an odd ceremony where they dunk the poor thing in water then I canāt honestly say Iām bothered. We didnāt have my son Christened on the basis he could choose for himself later, but I wouldnāt advocate banning Christenings.
But I think you have a point for devout, or ultra-devout parents, especially following religions that are, shall we say, more intense. Regular church going, religious teaching, faith schools etc. all conspire to firmly cross the line to indoctrination, IMO.
The difficulty then lies with the question āis there more loss of religious freedom in preventing a parent teaching a child their own faith, than in preventing the indoctrination and allowing the child to chooseā.
Personally I favour the freedom of the child - but most would end up siding with the parent.
There s a similar issue with parental insistence on a particular medical treatment, which might not be in the best interest of the child.