Why the Supreme Court was right to ban Shamima Begum from the UK
Edward Howard
One of the more troubling issues in modern Britain is that of Islamic extremism. Dating back to the 1980s, when such unfortunate episodes as the controversy surrounding The Satanic Verses came to pass, to now, when terrorists make up most of the terrorists in custody to this day. As a result, it has become the biggest open existential threat to Britain.
However, just like other major problems that Britain faces – such as mass immigration and increasing crime – it is one that much of the political elite has had a hard time tackling head on, mainly because of the implications of doing so. Firstly, the factors leading to the emergence of the terrorist threat can’t be discussed without other policies changing and for the political class to be proven wrong; and secondly, there remains a lingering fear of being called ‘politically incorrect’ and ‘racist’ for pointing this out, of which still scares off most mainstream politicians from touching such a thorny issue.
As such, while this problem still permeates without much done to combat it, many feel angry and ignored about trying to tackling it, leading to various football hooligan rabble rousing groups to fill the void, which isn’t helpful at all. This is because such groups are far more interested in a punch up than actual political action being taken to solve an issue, something they don’t hide very well at all.
It was a welcome change, therefore, when then-Home Secretary Sajid Javid revoked ISIS bride Shamima Begum’s citizenship in 2019, after she became infamous for a series of interviews she conducted for various British outlets, with her initial Times one being the most prominent. Despite her infamous pleas of wanting to be let back and how she has supposedly changed, her requests were continuously rejected, culminating in a rare moment of sanity for the Supreme Court, who in a unanimous decision have confirmed the revocation of citizenship.
Now, as expected, this has caused hysteria among much of the left (and some in the libertarian right for that matter) in Britain. Some of it has been reasonable, but most has not been, depending on unhinged and illogical arguments. Some have argued that as she was young, she was vulnerable and groomed and clearly deserves a second chance at life. Others have argued the move undermines the rule of law and denies her the right to a fair trial. And, of course, the aforementioned accusations of discrimination have surfaced, with some going as far to say that the ruling ‘says if you are brown you are not really British’.
Let’s look at these examples one by one, and show why they are wrong.
Firstly, let’s discuss the whole grooming issue, as it seems to be the most pertinent argument against this decision. To make such an argument more disturbing and insidious, some have actually compared her to grooming gang victims in the UK. But while it is true that she was radicalised as a teenager, that doesn’t excuse her behaviour. Several far-right extremists were radicalised in their youth – including the American terrorists Dylann Roof and James Alex Fields just to name a few – but being young did not excuse their sympathies or their behaviour, and Begum shouldn’t be any different. And she wasn’t simply a passer-by on much of ISIS’ notorious barbarism, given that not only was she a ‘strict enforcer’ of their laws, including those on female dress, she was allowed access to weaponry like a Kalashnikov rifle; as well as allegations of her stitching suicide bombers into explosive vests that couldn’t be removed without detonation.
It’s also clear that when interviewed that her views on Islamic extremism hadn’t changed, given that she happily justified the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing and admitted to feeling no remorse. It’s one thing to be groomed by those who take advantage and then get that person to commit crimes which they may regret in later life. It is another thing entirely to voluntarily join a known terrorist organisation, enforce and take part in its conduct, and show little shame for that later on. She is not a grooming victim, but rather someone who made their bed and refuses to lie in it.
For the second one, it does not undermine Britain’s rule of law, given that there is judicial precedent for the removal of citizenship. Back in the Cold War, several British names had their citizenship revoked for being Soviet spies, including Klaus Fuchs and Kim Philby. This is a precedent that continues to this day, with Russian spy Anna Chapman having her British citizenship revoked as recently as 2010. And while some would argue that such a comparison isn’t fair – the Soviet Union was a legitimate state allowing for them to gain citizenship there, which ISIS’ captured territories never were – it does show that there is a history of such a penalty befalling traitors. This is also in-line with British law, with the British Nationality Act (1981), and its 2014 extension permits for Home Secretaries to have someone’s citizenship revoked if their presence in Britain was ‘not conducive to the public good’ which, given Begum’s past, she certainly fits the criteria.
Furthermore, several people have also had their British citizenship revoked for similar charges to Begum since 2000, and the same arguments were not made, indicating one of two things: either that, due to having managed to reach the media before others in the camps and not having been involved in legitimate murders and terrorist acts, distinguished her enough; or that she was cynical enough to realise that much of the liberal elite that runs Britain are scared of the ‘racist’ and ‘bigot’ accusations that spring up as a result, that she then used it to earn sympathy.
Finally, the accusations of racism and discrimination: it is not racist or bigoted to defend your country and its people, regardless of colour or creed, against terrorists who seek to do us harm. Nor is it discriminatory to follow the rule of law. What makes such claims more absurd is that seems to echo the endless complaints against the Americans for killing Osama Bin Laden; that the rule of law wasn’t followed (even though it was) and that harsher action was taken against him as opposed to others.
What this does, at least in part, is show a particular prejudice; soft bigotry of low expectations. The assumption that radical Islamic terrorists should be held to a different standard than far-left or far-right terrorism. If that sounds wrong, it is; what it does in turn is reveal a form of prejudice, given that not only do the vast majority of Muslims in Britain and elsewhere not sympathise with the likes of Begum, but often support such harsh penalties against people like her, knowing that she does not represent their community or country.
There are, meanwhile, more sensible arguments in favour of letting her in, mainly in the possible dangerous precedent such a ruling leads to, as it can make anyone stateless. This isn’t an argument from the crazy left, but rather from more sensible commentators like Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens and prominent trade unionist and Blue Labour member Paul Embery. This argument however is also weak, not simply because of the previous examples of citizenship being revoked against British traitors loyal to the Soviet Union, but how such cases are exceptional. For all its undeniable faults, the British government is not a despotism, nor is it going down that route, making such worries harder to justify.
Overall, the Supreme Court was more than right to ban Begum from the UK. Not only does it stop a dangerous terrorist entering Britain, but also gives a clear signal that Britain is actually starting to take radical Islam both from within and from without seriously. Many of the arguments against it are heavily weak, and shows that along with so many other issues – like deporting foreign criminals and border security – that the left can’t win public opinion there, so making this the hill they want to collectively die on pretty stupid to say the least.
It gives a clear signal and message that Britain is at last taking the threat of radical Islam seriously, and moral outrage from the left and hand wringing from others doesn’t convince people anymore.