Shamima Begum: On Returning Islamic Fighters
Anyone in the UK knows about the latest piece of divisive news (as in, everyone has an opinion, and they appear neatly split in two): Shamima Begum, a "Jihadi bride", who left the UK to join ISIS as a bride when she was fifteen, has just had a baby in a Syrian camp and wants to return home.
As she said to a Sky News on Sunday: “I was hoping that maybe for the sake of me and my child they let me come back. Because I can’t live in this camp forever. It’s not really possible.”
The Guardian reports:
It emerged on Sunday that Begum has named the child Jarah after one of the two children she has lost since November 2018.
Which makes you wonder about the other living child and itss whereabouts.
The Home Secretary (Sajid Javid) wants to block her return as do many people.
As ever, there are many good arguments on either side of this. Her leaving was a famous deal: three fifteen-year-old schoolgirls bunked off school and did a runner to ISIS. Now, four years later, one has died, one is happy to remain, and one is appealing to the better to the better nature of the UK public in wanting to return to bring up her child.
I understand the initial reaction (I felt it too) of saying, "No way! You made your bed, now lie in it!"
Arguments for blocking her
The obvious starter is that she arguably poses a security threat; it would be something akin to negotiating with terrorists, or giving in to their desires.
When she left in 2015 to marry a converted Islamic fighter from the Netherlands:
...she was aware of beheadings and executions being carried out by the extremists but she was "okay with it", because she had heard "Islamically that is allowed". [source]
At the sub-adult age of fifteen, she still clearly showed agency and understanding. She knew about and eventually saw evidence of beheadings, and was still okay about it. Indeed, Javid has stated in the Sunday Times:
As home secretary, my priority is to ensure the safety and security of this country — and I will not let anything jeopardise that. These are not judgments to be taken based purely on emotion and empathy. We look at the facts of each case, the law and the threat to national security.
Begum was a child when she left, but she is now nineteen and an adult with the full range of moral responsibilities and accountability ascribed to her by UK society. As such, using the "only a child" argument is somewhat moot.
Javid rightfully warns of investigation and potential prosecution:
Those who do manage to return should be ready to be questioned, investigated and potentially prosecuted — regardless of their age or gender. Last week parliament approved our new Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, which extends the list of offences committed overseas to include recklessly expressing support for a banned terrorist organisation and sharing its publications or propaganda.
He concludes:
As a father I feel compassion for any child born or brought into a conflict zone. But in considering what actions need to be taken now, I have to think about the safety and security of children living in our country. I think about the children that could in future get caught up in dangerous groups if we don’t take a firm stance against those who support them. And I think about the children who have been killed in evil attacks like the one in Manchester. I will do everything I can to stop a tragedy like that happening in Britain again. And that means sending a message to those who have backed terrorism: there will be consequences.
Really, the arguments for blocking her return come down to national security and retribution. This retributive streak is underpinned by a feeling of national rejection. This girl and her friends rejected the UK, culturally, legally, and morally, in favour of a moral religious framework that is antithetical to our way of life here. This is what is implicitly underwriting people's reactions to the whole situation. "If you reject us and our way of life, why should we entertain welcoming you back and using our hard-earned and hard-won services to benefit you and yours?"
Arguments for allowing her back in
There are certainly more arguments for allowing Begum back into the country; whether they arfe stronger, I guess we'll just see.
Mohammed Akunjee, her family lawyer, is fighting for her return:
Akunjee said on Sunday that Javid was "misunderstanding the law" and that Britain had a responsibility towards Begum and her newborn child. "A parent has responsibility and so does Britain," he added.
One crucial point is that she and her friends were only fifteen when they left - still children - and not, in some senses, fully responsible for their action. Our conversations here about moral responsibility for children are then, somewhat prescient. And, of course, we don't know what causal factors were involved in her leaving for the Middle East when she did. She claims being radicalised by online videos and social media. But we don't know of her family background and any trauma she may or may not have experienced. You may defer to arguments about libertarian free will here, but even if you don't want to go that far, behaviours and decisions are underwritten by something - they aren't just random. She will have been convinced- by some confluence of causal variables from outside of her own body, mind and DNA. Just as with crime, mental health, trauma and any other child, adolescent and early adult phenomenon, we seek understanding. Without fully understanding someone and their situation, taking any action is completely devoid of context. In short, we shouldn't make any decision about Begum's future without first understanding her past and her present. Most returning jihadis, over time, have been men. Many of them are paid up members of counter-terrorism organisations or support organisations to de-radicalise or prevent radicalisation of potential converts. Begum is incurring much wrath, but why should she be treated any differently to these people? Maajid Nawaz and Manwar Ali are exceptionally high-profile cases of this (to the point that Nawaz is now a famous author, LBC radio presenter and once a Lib Dem candidate). Here we have someone who could provide really useful intel on ISIS from a different perspective, one of a woman, as well as someone who can offer (if she is de-radicalised successfully) counter-terrorism and preventative support from a female perspective. Of course, Begum claims she is no threat to national security:
Asked to respond to concerns that she could be potentially dangerous if she returned, Begum said: “They don’t have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous. When I went to Syria I was just a housewife, the entire four years I stayed at home, took care of my husband, took care of my kids. I never did anything. I never made propaganda, I never encouraged people to come to Syria.”
Another argument to defend her repatriation is that she is a British national, and we are duty bound and perhas morally bound (moral duty) to protect her health and welfare. This, importantly, extends to her newly born child. We should have the best interests of that child t heart and should not be punishing it on account of the wrongs of its mother. Perhaps allowing the mother to return is also in its best interests:
In a statement issued on Friday, the family said her apparent lack of regret for joining Isis should be seen as the “words of a girl who was groomed at the age of 15”. “Now we are faced with the situation of knowing that Shamima’s young children have died – children we will never come to know as a family. This is the hardest of news to bear,” the statement read. “The welfare of Shamima’s unborn child is of paramount concern to our family, and we will do everything within our power to protect that baby who is entirely blameless in these events.” Helen Clark, a former head of the United Nations Development Programme and prime minister of New Zealand, said Begum had been groomed and had the right to return to the UK. “She is a UK citizen, she’s born there. The head of MI6 says she has a right to return,” she told Newstalk ZB in New Zealand on Monday. “It’s always possible that people can turn their lives around. We’ve seen that before.” “I’m appalled by the ‘no regret’ attitude she showed,” she added. “But nonetheless she is a citizen, and in the end we do have obligations to citizens.” Speaking on the BBC’s The Andrew Marr Show, the culture secretary, Jeremy Wright, said the nationality of Begum’s child was “not straightforward”. He said there were concerns about her health and the health of her baby, but that, if she did return to the UK she would have to “answer for her actions”. “British citizens who only have British citizenship are entitled to come back to the UK. That’s a matter of international law. But as a matter of international law too, and domestic law potentially, people also have to take responsibility for their actions, and she will be no exception to that.”
It's not that I don't think she should be ansswerable for her actions; quite the opposite. Only in her returning to the UK will this be the case.
Conclusion
On reflection, I think that Begum should be returned or allowed to return to the UK for moral and pragmatic reasons. She will be a useful asset in understanding the pull of ISIS to young, impressionable females, and could provide vital support, if de-radicalised, to potential extremists and returnees, especially female ones. Understanding people is better than brandishing them, then blaming them. Surely it's better to keep your enemies close by, and to show them the power of reconciliation and forgiveness.
Stay in touch! Like A Tippling Philosopher on Facebook:
A Tippling Philosopher
Please also donate to my MS treatment appeal (I have just been diagnosed with Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis) so I can keep doing what I do!