The word ‘entrapment’ has so far been absent from all the reports on Shamima Begum. The headlines and commentaries over the last seven years have malignantly described her as the Jihadi bride, remorseless, a threat to national security, and evil. Those few advocating humane empathy pointed out she was groomed, vulnerable, and a minor. However, these attempts of mitigation were largely brushed aside by the conviction that ‘she clearly knew what she was doing!’ Comprehensively, compassion was given over to outright condemnation.
Bethnal Green
The tragic chronical began on 17th February 2015. When three friends abandoned their homes in Bethnal Green to pursue the new life that was promised by ISIS. Heading for the Middle Eastern lands that were under their autonomy. Kadiza Sultana, Shamima Begum, and Amira Abase boarded a flight from Gatwick airport1. The travel arrangements had been made by a man called Mohammed al-Rashed. The teenagers met with al-Rashed at Istanbul bus station, who then smuggled them into Syria.
What the teenagers were clearly oblivious to, was that Mohammed al-Rashed worked for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).
Canada had recruited the ISIS trafficker as an intelligence agent back in 2013, when he applied for asylum at the Canadian embassy in Jordan. Concerned about young Canadians being urged to join ISIS the authorities took the opportunity to recruit al-Rashed.2
These details of Canadian Intelligence’s involvement are outlined in the latest book by film maker and journalist, Richard Kerbaj. The Secret History of the Five Eyes uncovers the international network that continues to share intelligence between America, Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand.
Apparently, al-Rashed helped organise the travel of dozens of men and women into Syria from the UK. The double agent photographed their passports on the pretext that he needed proof of identity to buy domestic transport tickets and then forwarded the images to his CSIS handler at the Jordan embassy.3
As the Metropolitan Police launched a huge international search for the schoolgirls from Bethnal Green, Canada failed to immediately inform the UK of its role in the affair. Despite knowing what had happened within 24 hours of the international alert, CSIS remained quiet until the following month. They only eventually admitted their involvement after fearing being exposed, and then asked the British to cover up their role.4
Profound Implications
It was two years ago that a friend5 of mine mentioned that Begum was smuggled into Syria by Canadian Intelligence. Since then, I have waited for these details to become widely known in the public domain before committing my thoughts to writing. The information regarding CSIS has profound implications, so it was obvious that it was only a matter of time before it made the headlines.6
But even before becoming aware of the involvement of Canadian Intelligence and the subsequent cover up by the authorities, the injustice Shamima Begum has been repeatedly subjected to is plainly apparent. And the series of injustices were there to be scrutinised from the very beginning.
Urgency
On 20th February 2015 the Metropolitan Police issued an international alert for any information from anybody regarding the whereabouts of Sultana, Begum, and Abase. The Police circulated the infamous images of the three teenagers passing through security at Gatwick airport. And the story was reported with great concern across the globe.
Time is essential when trying to trace missing people. The wide reporting at this early stage of the investigation was essential. There would have been a heightened level of concern when discovering that they had travelled to Turkey.
It was at this point that journalists must have considered the sort of questions that would immediately come to mind. How did they do it, and unnoticed too? Are they well-travelled? They don’t speak Turkish, so how did they hope to make it through that country? How did they know what to do, where to go? Was it realistic that these teenagers planned it amongst themselves? If they got help, from whom, from where and how?
The families were completely bewildered. This was completely out of character and there had been no signs that something was amiss. And the families were not able to explain how each of them had managed to finance the tickets, which were over £1,000 each. Where had the money come from?
Had these lines of enquiry been pursued by the media then maybe the narrowly reported arrest of al-Rashed by Turkish Police7 would have been noticed. If not certainly, other leads and information would have been uncovered in the UK, had they only pursued the obvious lines of enquiry. It just required the time and opportunity for journalists to do their job.
Instead, they began exploring the teenagers’ Muslim background and speculated what led them onto the road to radicalisation. It had not taken long for the shadow of demonisation to distract from the importance over the search for the missing teenagers. After the initial shock and concern over what had happened, the tabloid press soon began its flood of “Jihadi brides” coverage.
The media quickly abandoned the path of caring in favour of pursuing the path of sensationalism.
Anthony Loyd
Four years later, the Islamic State was coming to an end. Raqqa and Mosul had been liberated and the final stronghold around the town of Baghouz, in Eastern Syria, was under siege. Europeans fleeing from airstrikes and hunger were interned into refugee camps, mostly located in Northern Syria. It was mainly women and children that escaped, as predominately the men remained behind to die for their lost cause.
The Times journalist, Anthony Loyd, was searching the al-Hawl refugee camp8 looking for any UK citizens that he was hoping would agree to speak to him.
Word had spread around the camp, and he was approached by a young lady that announced, “I’m a Bethnal Green girl”.
Loyd immediately realised that he had stumbled across one of the three missing girls from the East London borough. Within his grasp was the sensational scoop that every journalist dreams of. His credibility would become astronomical and Shamima Begum’s anonymity would disappear forever.
Loyd maintains that he conducted himself professionally. He pointed out to Shamima that she did not have to speak to him and neither did she have to answer any questions she was not comfortable with.
He began by asking her what had happened to her after she arrived in Turkey. He later asked her about living under the Islamic State. “What was that like? Was that an experience which fulfilled your aspirations?”
“Yeah, it actually really did. It was like a normal life, like the life that they show in the propaganda videos, you know. It’s a normal life but every now and then there are bombs and stuff.”
“Did you ever see executions?”
“No never. But I saw beheaded heads in the bins”
“In the bins?”
“Yeah, in the bins”
“What was that like when you first saw that? These are the heads of carcasses?”
“Yeah, it didn’t faze me at all”
Later in the interview Loyd points out that she was not fazed by the severed head but that she was angry about the oppression ISIS had imposed. “Do you think this is the end of the Caliphate?”
“There is so much oppression and corruption going on that I really don’t think that they deserve victory.” Shamima replied8.
Upon hearing about how ‘normal’ life was living in Raqqa, Loyd immediately asked if she had witnessed any public executions. Was that an attempt to clarify the aspects of normal day-to-day living within the Islamic State? Was he demonstrating impartial professional journalism or was that a question reflecting the current political climate? What did he think she meant as normal?
Ignoring the context and lack of clarification over the circumstances, the media in England became preoccupied with determining how a young woman could be unfazed when she noticed a severed head discarded in a bin. Somehow her criticism of the ‘oppression and corruption’ of ISIS was never fully explored.
Shamina probed Loyd during their discussion. “Can I just ask you what you think my fate is going to be? Because my situation is different, I left when I was young. Do you remember when I left, and I was like all over the news? My family, they somehow went to Parliament or something and Parliament said if I ever came back, I won’t be charged with terrorism or something like that. Does that rule still apply or have rules changed?”
Loyd replied, “The rules have not officially changed. You would be subject of course to an investigation to see if you had been responsible or participated in a terrorist act.”
She made it clear that she was happy to return to the UK and face any subsequent police investigation. However, she was concerned that may result in her child being taken into care by Social Services. Loyd conceded he did not know what would happen to her child.
Loyd finally became aware of what her motivation was in wanting to speak with him. Protecting her unborn child.
The BBC Interview
The BBC, amongst many broadcasters, covered the story based on Loyd’s article and recordings that were uploaded to the internet. The reaction back in Britain was nothing short of hatred.
Since the Bethnal Green girls had been away, there had been the mass shootings at the Batalan in Paris, the single deadliest terrorist attack in French history; the lone gunman at the tourist resort at Port El Kantaoui in Tunisia that took the lives of thirty Britons; and the Würzburg train attack where Riaz Khan Ahmadzai, a 17-year-old refugee from Afghanistan, stabbed and injured five people.
Twelve people were killed, and fifty-six others injured in December 2016 when a truck was deliberately driven into the crowds at the Christmas market at Breitscheidplatz, in Berlin. And of course, there had been the bombing at Manchester Arena.
Some of these incidents, and many more across Europe were linked to ISIS. Either by ISIS claiming direct responsibility for them or the offenders declaring their support for ISIS.
On 31st December 2018 at Manchester Victoria station, Mahdi Mohamud10 stabbed three people in a knife attack. Mohamud shouted “Allahu Akbar!” and “Long live the Caliphate!” This took place shortly before Shamina Begum spoke to Loyd.
For obvious reasons the camp officials did not permit internet access. Shamima was cut off from the rest of the world. Her latest situation had followed a life of isolated existence for a few years. Her knowledge about what had happened across Europe would have been limited. Without a doubt, she would not have been sufficiently exposed to the media coverage and political mood across the UK. And more importantly, she had no idea over the reaction of Loyd’s article that was printed in The Times.
Bearing in mind that meeting Anthony Loyd in 2019, was the very first contact she had with somebody from the West,
- She conceded that she knew little about what had happened in the UK over the last four years
- She was willing to speak to the press because she heard that Parliament had no intention of pressing charges against her
- She was willing to speak to the press because she thought that would allow her to return to the UK and give her unborn child the best chance of survival
- She reacted how any other mother would react
- Loyd reassured her that her human rights were subject to protection from the UK11
She was clearly expecting justice to prevail. A few days later she agreed to be interviewed by Quentin Sommerville from the BBC.
“So here is your opportunity then to apologise to some of the people who were murdered by the group that you joined. Some of the British men, women, some of the kids from Manchester that were killed at the Manchester Arena. You must have heard about that attack? What did you think about that?”
Every Muslim that watched this must have cringed. Then cringed some more when Shamima answered! Clearly oblivious to the content that these questions were asked. Not a single Muslim watching would have answered the same way Shamima answered – because every Muslim understood exactly how such an answer would go on to be misrepresented.
She should have taken Loyd’s advice and left the interview there and then or exposed the nature of the question by pointing out that as he was a representative of an organisation that supported the war in Iraq, perhaps he might want to take the opportunity to apologise to the parents of Baghdad!
Seriously, was he asserting that by mere association she was responsible for the Manchester Arena bombing? This sort of collective blame has been held to ransom over the Muslim community for years. Like many of us, I am used to hearing this sort of irrational reasoning. However, Shamima seemed completely taken aback.
Indeed, hindsight is a beautiful thing. Instead, she addressed the end section from the series of questions he had just fired at her. She mumbled through her points, that included the killing of innocent people is wrong; that there were innocent people at Manchester; innocent Muslims had been killed in Syria too; and that Shamima had heard the justification for killing innocent people in Britain was that it was tit-for-tat for the deaths of innocent civilians from the Islamic State.
Immediately after this he pointed out “I still haven’t heard an apology from you! ”
Reminding her that she missed the first of his multiple questions demonstrated the aggressive nature he had decided to undertake. Clearly if she failed to pick up that she needed to share remorse and sorrow then she could not expect any sympathy.
So, this was the nature of impartiality and professionalism from the BBC!12
The ITV Interview
And if the BBC were not manipulating and humiliating enough. The next insensitive media stunt was crueller still.
Rohit Kachroo from ITV News invited her in, sat her down and asked if she had heard any news from the UK regarding her case. He passed her a copy of the letter that her family had received from the Home Office the previous day. She was filmed13 whilst reading the letter and learning for the first time that her UK citizenship had been revoked!
Please find enclosed papers that relate to a decision taken by the Home Secretary, to deprive your daughter, Shamima Begum, of her British Citizenship14.
How do you justify filming that? How was that being professional? How is that not victimisation? How was that not exploiting her vulnerability?
On the birth of her child the Metro published the headline “Jihadi Baby”.
Examples of journalists clearly discarding integrity and objectivity in favour of career chasing.
Media Savvy
It is interesting the relationship between mainstream media, politicians, and public opinion. Any one of those can create hysteria. It should be the role of the other two elements to counter any dubious or unsubstantiated claims. After all, that is partly what public protesting and investigative journalism are all about.
But things can go awry whenever the media bows to either political will or public opinion. For example, the media failed to account the government over their claims that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Thereafter the media were committed to supporting the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. In that case, the public redeemed themselves when they took part in the largest demonstration ever seen in London, back in 2003.
There are of course many other examples, which could include journalists not being allowed to print the truth because of the fear of a public or political backlash.
With so much at stake, the decision to go in front of a camera, is not an easy one. You need to be media savvy.
Shamima Begum may well be a ‘straight A student’, but she was clearly not articulate or quick thinking. She clearly was completely unprepared for the sort of questions she was likely to be asked. All that those TV interviews demonstrated was how naïve Shamima was.
Foreign Office
The Foreign Office is responsible to inspect and protect the welfare of UK citizens whenever in difficulty abroad. The Foreign Office has simply never been there for Shamima Begum15.
Metropolitan Police
By March 2015 it became clear that Sultana, Begum, and Abase were all in Northern Syria.
A Parliamentary Select Committee was established to review the circumstances around the teenagers’ disappearance. On Tuesday 10th March 2015 they heard evidence from Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Commissioner, London’s Metropolitan Police and Mark Rowley Anti-Terror Chief, London’s Metropolitan Police.
At the point they were being asked their opinion on how they “could get them back safely to this country”, Rowley replied “We have no evidence in this case that these three girls are responsible for any terrorist offences”.
To clarify, Chair of the Committee Keith Vaz immediately enquired, “In other words, if they return, they would not be returning to jail, they could return to their families. Is that what you are saying today?” Both Rowley and Hogan-Howe nodded and said yes.16
When and how did that change? I don’t recall any Police response towards the negative media coverage regarding the missing teenagers. If the head of the Metropolitan Police gave an assurance that there was no evidence of ‘any terrorist offences’, why was the media allowed to speculate to the contrary? Were there any other areas that the Police failed Shamima Begum?
The father of Abase said that the first he heard that his daughter may have travelled to Syria was on TV! Police had not told him before issuing the international alert17.
In early March 2015, Richard Walton, the Metropolitan Head of Counter-Terrorism (SO15), had met with two officialsfrom CSIS18. They were hoping to persuade the Police that the CSIS would not become a focus for Metropolitan’s investigation.
Although I cannot be certain, it however seems highly likely that the Police had given their assurance to the Parliamentary Select Committee based on the awareness of the role that Canadian Intelligence had with the teenagers going missing.
Risk Assessment
The same Parliamentary Select Committee also heard how this could have all been prevented.
Sharmeena Begum (no family relation) was reportedly the first British schoolgirl to join ISIS. She left her home in December 2014. Aged 15 years old she was from Bethnal Green. She also had attended the same Bethnal Green Academy as Khadiza Sultana, Shamima Begum, and Amira Abase.
In relation to the disappearance of Sharmeena Begum, in December, the police went to the school to question seven of her friends. They included Sultana, Begum, and Abase. After the interviews, each of the girls were given letters to take to their parents. None of the parents received a letter.
Two months later, the three teenagers then headed for Turkey.
All the families maintained had they known their daughters had been identified as being at risk, then they could have taken steps to prevent them from joining ISIS.
MPs heard that there were no other signs for the families to have noticed that the three girls had been radicalised before they ran away to join ISIS.
The families pointed out that the simple precaution of hiding their passports would have been enough to stop them.
Speaking to the Home Affairs Select Committee, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said “I’m sorry that [the families] are in this situation, and I’m also sorry that the letter we intended to get to them didn’t get through. Clearly, that failed. It was intended for them, and it failed, and for that of course we are sorry.”
MPs at the Home Affairs Select Committee also heard that after the first girl ran away, risk assessments should have been done on the seven girls believed to be at risk, however they had not been done. Risk assessments were still outstanding for two younger sisters of the girls, who attended the same school.
Not only had the police failed Shamima Begum, so too had the local authority. And this had all been acknowledged back in March 2015!
Home Office
Upon hearing the news that Shamima Begum had given birth to a boy, the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, made it clear he would be willing to deny her return to the UK.
“If you have supported terrorist organisations abroad, I will not hesitate to prevent your return,” he said. “If you do manage to return you should be ready to be questioned, investigated and potentially prosecuted.”
Writing in the Sunday Times, Javid said: “As a father, I feel compassion for anyone 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.”19
His decision to revoke Shamima of her British nationality was made on 19th February 2019, shortly after Jarrah had been born. Jarrah died of pneumonia on Thursday 7th March 2019. He was less than three weeks old.
When Javid addressed the House of Commons explaining his decision, he frequently referred to the media interviews Shamima had given. He also referred to the Manchester Arena bombing. Javid asserted that “If you back terror there must be consequences.”
Other than the details from her media interviews, the Home Secretary did not provide any further details regarding what other information he based his decision on. If the Police had since reached a different conclusion, then that would have been the best time to mention it. There was no evidence presented that she had any involvement with any acts of terrorism. And of course, CSIS involvement was not part of his discourse, but he must have had access to that information.
Although journalists were allowed into the Syrian camps in early 2019, lawyers, Human Rights organisations and NGOs were not permitted to enter. Therefore, Shamima had no opportunity to access expert legal advice at the time she undertook those interviews. Clearly no consideration was given to her vulnerabilities.
Lawyers representing Shamima, have confirmed that most of the evidence provided by the Home Secretary, that she posed a danger, were merely submissions of transcripts from the media interviews she had given.
Maya Foa, the joint executive director of Reprieve, a human rights groupthat has been closely following the case18, said the contents of Kerbaj’s bookposed “concerning questions about what the UK government knew about Shamima’s trafficking” and that “rather than try to protect three vulnerable British children who had been groomed and trafficked, the government chose to demonise them”.
The human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, summed up the Home Secretary’s decision best (back in 2019):
“It is very sad to hear that Shamima Begum has just watched her third child die in just a few months. While she has made some very stupid decisions, and nobody is saying otherwise, she is still a teenager.
“It is also sad to see Sajid Javid trying to better his chances of becoming prime minister by illegally stripping her of her passport, rather than maturely focusing on the needs of a helpless infant who might have been rescued. Indeed, it is just this kind of ill-considered populism that is further alienating many Muslims when we should be proving that we really do believe in human rights for all.”20
International Law
The UK Government has continuously maintained that Shamima has the right to Bangladeshi citizenship, based on both of her parents being of Bangladeshi origin. Regarding this position Maya Foa pointed out the following:
“As I understand it, Bangladesh confers citizenship by birth to children born to Bangladeshi nationals and allows dual citizenship under certain limited circumstances. Shamima Begum is a British national and had not applied for the Dual Nationality Certificate allowing her to legally claim citizenship or dual citizenship of UK and Bangladesh. When she left for Syria, she was only acknowledged as a British citizen and once she’d made contact with Daesh (ISIS), she could no longer be considered eligible for citizenship of Bangladesh, owing to her ‘links with a terrorist organisation,’ resulting in her being unable to pass the ‘good character’ test. Since her British citizenship was later withdrawn with the knowledge that she had been in contact with Daesh and (in my opinion) the Foreign Office should have known that Bangladesh could not accept any application from her for citizenship or naturalisation, it appears the British government has tried to force a ‘loophole’ in Bangladesh’s citizenship legislation.”
Bangladesh has also confirmed that they would seek the death penalty in a terrorism trial, should Shamima Begum ever fall under their jurisdiction.
Clearly removing the passport of Shamima Begum and rendering her stateless is illegal under international law. Since its inception, international law has been used by the leading powers to subjugate the rest of the world to their dominance. Muslims have consistently witnessed international law being used as an instrument of weaponization against Islam. Accordingly, a young naïve woman like Begum stood no chance relying on the system of justice regulated by the leading western powers.
The Queen’s Judiciary
Other than the Appeals court, every level of the judiciary has failed in safeguarding Shamima Begum’s right to any justice.
The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the only way Ms Begum could receive a fair and effective hearing at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) was to permit her to return to the UK. This would secure her right to pursue her appeal for the removal of her British citizenship. In July 2020, Home Secretary Priti Patel, immediately appealed against that decision.
This would result in the case being reviewed by the Supreme Court.
On 26th February 2021, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed all of the Home Secretary’s appeals and dismissed Ms Begums counter appeals. The Supreme Court had identified four errors in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
First, it misunderstood the scope of an appeal against the Home Secretary’s decision to refuse a person leave to enter the UK. As Ms Begum did not advance the argument that the Home Secretary had acted unlawfully in violation of her human rights, then the Court of Appeal should have dismissed her appeal.
So, the judges in the Court of Appeal were not permitted to use their experience and knowledge of all relevant laws in relation to the evidence that was presented to it!
Also on this first point, Lord Reed, pointed out that the Home Secretary was “democratically accountable to parliament”, implying that the Appeal Court did not “respect” that the Home Secretary is answerable to both Parliament and the electorate.
In reality, both would be ineffective as the Government always holds the majority of MPs in the House of Commons. Also, the rage against Begum is palpable. In November 2020 a YouGov survey found that 70% of the public did not want her to return to Britain. Social media continues to be awash with vitriol against Shamima Begum. Neither Javid nor Patel are unlikely to suffer at the ballot box based on their decision to keep Begum out of the UK. Measured on that basis, politically there will be no consequences for any Home Secretary blocking her return.
The role of the Judiciary is to scrutinise the Government and hold it accountable. It is one of three fundamental checks and balances that advocates of the democratic system proclaim is a feature that guarantees full transparent accountability. The Supreme court had overturned the Court of Appeal’s statute duty to account the Government.
Secondary, the Court of Appeal made its own assessment of the requirements of national security and preferred it, to that of the Home Secretary, despite any relevant evidence or facts.
This conclusion was simply untrue. The Court of Appeal examined the evidence that was submitted by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). SIAC also confirmed that there was no extra evidence that was inaccessible i.e. they confirmed that there was no secret evidence. Having reviewed all the evidence against Begum, the Court of Appeal concluded that there was clearly no threat to national security. Despite there being no evidence that Begum was a threat to the public, the court nonetheless added a caveat. That should it transpire that there was indeed a danger of any kind, then there were plenty of options available to safeguard the public. For example, she could be held in custody for the duration of any trial held in the UK.
Thirdly, the Supreme Court declared that the right to a fair hearing does not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public and national security.
As already pointed out, the importance of safety had been thoroughly considered by the Court of Appeal. Plus, the Supreme Court made no reference as to why the Court of Appeal had made the argument for the right to a fair trial.
The Court of Appeal had heard evidence from Shamima’s lawyers that they had insufficient contact with their client and had not been able to receive adequate instruction21 from her. Thereby this had compromised their preparation for her defence. At that time, Begum’s case with SIAC was pending. Having taken all of that into consideration, the Court of Appeal ruled it was in the interest of conducting a fair case that she should be allowed to return to the UK. In other words, her lawyers should be allowed access to her.
On this third point, Lord Reed also declared, “In this case, the safety of the public – makes it impossible for a case to be fairly heard [by SIAC], then the courts cannot ordinarily hear it. The appropriate response to the problem in the present case is for the appeal to be stayed until Ms Begum is in a position to play an effective part in it, without the safety of the public being compromised. That is not a perfect solution, as it is not known how long it may be before that is possible. But there is no perfect solution to a dilemma of the present kind.”
In other words, the Supreme court acknowledged that Shamima was not in a position to challenge being made stateless, as it was not practical for her to do so. So, what was she supposed to do then? Alternative safe locations were not available, because the Supreme Court had just upheld the denial of her right to travel. Plus, it was also denying her any ‘safe’ options to be considered here in the UK. This was despite the Court of Appeal making that exact provision available, should it had transpired that she presented a danger to the public.
Fourthly, the Court of Appeal mistakenly treated the Home Secretary’s human rights policy as if it was a rule of law22.
Oh, I see, they are only guidelines!
In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal was wrong in doing its job.
It ruled it was also perfectly fine to keep Shamima Begum in limbo. In limbo to having access to her lawyers. In limbo with having her case heard by SIAC. In limbo with exercising her human rights.
The Supreme Court’s decision is so flawed that it is inevitable that at some point in the future it will be overturned. That however does nothing to alleviate the considerable delay before Shamima gains access to justice. In effect she is in captivity, without being found guilty of any crime.
Meanwhile, because the Supreme Court said the Home Secretary’s assessment should be “respected” by the judiciary, any Home Secretaries hereafter, will claim the decision to remove Begum of her citizenship is completely vindicated and legal.
Priti Patel said the Supreme Court decision “reaffirmed the home secretary’s authority to make vital national security decisions“23.
Rosie Brighouse, a lawyer with Liberty, commented, “The right to a fair trial is not something democratic governments should take away on a whim, and nor is someone’s British citizenship.
“If a government is allowed to wield extreme powers like banishment without the basic safeguards of a fair trial, it sets an extremely dangerous precedent.
“The security services have safely managed the returns of hundreds of people from Syria, but the government has chosen to target Shamima Begum.”24
The Supreme Court had the opportunity to correct all of the previous societal injustices hurled against Shamima, by upholding the principle of law. Unanimously they justified conjecture instead.
Habeas Corpus
There should be a presumption of innocence before anybody is found guilty. This principle underpins the necessity that criminal offences must be proven, rather than the suspect demonstrating the accusations are false. In other words, it is not Shamima Begum’s responsibility to prove her innocence, rather it is the responsibility of the UK authorities to prove her guilt.
Between media exploitation and political expediency, the right of Habeas Corpus has been denied to Shamima. Not only has she been subjected to trial by media, but the trial by politicians has also abused her fundamental rights.
But even before considering the injustice over how this guilt has been established, what actually is she guilty of? Can any member of the media or government outline what crimes she can be linked to?
When Shamima left the UK in February 2015, ISIS had been a proscribed organisation for eight months. Meaning she allegedly committed the crime of joining an illegal organisation.
Shamima Begum has consistently explained that she understood she would eventually be married to a member from ISIS. Accordingly, once she arrived in Syria, she remained in accommodation reserved for single women, until she had chosen a husband for herself25. In effect, what she described was how she became a citizen of a State not internationally recognised. Hardly the heinous transgression that justifies preventing her returning to her native country. And this is merely an extension of being involved with a proscribed organisation.
In effect, she is also confessing to running away from home, getting pregnant and of taking care of her children, as best she could. Lawbreaking on that basis potentially affects a significant proportion of the 45% of teenagers that become pregnant in the UK!
She did marry ISIS fighter Yago Riedijk. However, that is not a felony. Barbara Windsor, Frances Shea, Alwen Hughes, and Paula Williamson26 are all examples of women marrying convicted criminals.
She abandoned the British way of life in favour of an ideology that hates everything the UK represents and stands for. That’s not a crime either.
However, the one criminal charged that can be brought to bear (which, let’s face it, is not explicitly explained) is coupled with that ever-presiding danger she poses to the people in this country. Is that not wrongdoing enough?
Well, if that is the case, then she had to have been directly involved with either terrorism or crimes against humanity. But there are no details of her having been involved with any such activities. In fact, the Government has repeatedly conceded that ‘it is very hard’ to gather such evidence ‘from the ground’. So, in effect the Government has admitted its accusations are merely speculative!
She revealed that she was unfazed when she noticed severed heads27 that were discarded in a roadside bin. However, being unfazed by this is not a criminal act.
That only leaves the fear that after being indoctrinated with the most dangerous opposition to western ideals, her thoughts are likely to be unhealthy and violent. Well, if criminal thoughts were made to become illegal, then none of us would be innocent.
Shamima Begum regrets joining ISIS and is prepared to face trial in the UK. Despite no clear accusation of what crime(s) she needs to regret. And despite her right to remain silent.
She could choose to insist it is the UK Government and not her that is obliged, by their own legal principles, to clearly present the case for criminal proceedings. But she has accepted that she will confront “whatever” charges and consequences the Government is prepared to pursue. Buster Edwards and Ronnie Biggs were allowed to return to the UK and face the consequences of their criminal actions. Is Shamima Begum more dangerous than other criminals that have either returned or been extradited to Britain?
If she was to announce she is innocent – she would be innocent, until proven otherwise.
The truth of this injustice of being denied Habeas Corpus began in 2015 – as soon as she crossed the border into Syria.
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.”
Accountability
When Tony Blair was ambiguous and relying on insinuation to alert us of the imminent threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, it was clear the UK Government was hiding something. With hindsight many journalists and media representatives have acknowledged that they had failed to do their job properly.28
Were lessons learnt?
As outlined, time and time again, there have been plenty of opportunities for the media to have realised that within the narrative regarding Shamima Begum, some things have never added up. There were numerous grounds whereby a journalist could have justified taking the opportunity to have dug deeper.
And yet…?
‘Great’ Britain
“How can we separate out the Celtic, the Roman, the Saxon, the Norman, the Huguenot, the Jewish, the Asian and the Caribbean and all the other nations that have come and settled here? Why should we want to? It is precisely this rich mix that has made all of us what we are today.”
“When it comes to our essential values – belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage – then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common. It is what gives us the right to call ourselves British.”
Prime Minister Tony Blair consistently stood before the world stage and championed Great Britain. Forever confident in all its institutions, its values, and its sense of fair play.
“The British are special. The world knows it. In our innermost thoughts we know it. This is the greatest nation on earth.”
Yet the greatest nation on earth is intimidated by a 5-foot 5-inch lady in her twenties. Where is the confidence in the British justice system? Where is the confidence in the rule of law? Where is the confidence in equal treatment for all? Where is the confidence to have her stand before the British public, Muslims included, that would never support ISIS? Why refuse her desperation to stand before a jury? Is it really because she is dangerous? Too dangerous to be brought to this country and placed straight into a prison cell? Where is the confidence in UK security institutions? Is there really such a lack of confidence in everything Britain stands for?
Clearly Shamima Begum is not the Muslim equivalent of Jason Bourne! Clearly this would be the best opportunity to show how fair, just, and confident Great Britain is.
But you would only want to keep her away if you had something to hide.
Made an Example
“Why did you keep her in a state of distress for a year, before you brought charges?”
“The Services wanted to make an example of her. If we dropped the case any earlier, what kind of message would that have sent?”
This is an extract from the final scene of the 2019 movie Official Secrets. A film that outlined how a defence lawyer managed to embarrass the UK Government over its attempt to secure the case for war against Saddam Hussein. It is based on a true story.
Katherine Gun worked for the UK’s intelligence agency, GCHQ29. In 2003, she received an email, from the NSA30, asking her and her colleagues to help in a vast intelligence “surge” designed to secure a UN resolution to send troops into Iraq. She was horrified by this request and leaked the email to the Observer. As a result of the leak, she was arrested, lost her job, and eventually charged for breaking the Official Secrets Act.
The story printed in the Observer exposed how the United States planned to gather intelligence on members of the UN Security Council in order to secure a second resolution for Saddam Hussein’s non-compliance with WMD inspectors. The United Kingdom had agreed to assist the Americans.
Is banning Shamima Begum really in the interests of protecting British citizens? Or is the intention to keep her in a prolonged state of distress to make an example of her? And if so, what sort of message is that sending out? Although the message is certainly not lost on the Muslim community, is this whole business about something more? Perhaps once again hiding some awkward truths?
He Who Laughs Last, Laughs Entrapment
Whenever the UK Government has solely relied on intelligence in taking action against Muslims, it has consistently become apparent that the intelligence was either poor or non-existent. So, with that precedent, why has the negative narrative against Shamima Begum been allowed to go unchecked whenever intelligence is mentioned? The recent ‘revelation’ that there are witnesses that have seen her sewing suicide vests on to volunteers31 has suspiciously come out of the blue; very conveniently.
However, worst case scenario, the Government does indeed have accurate intelligence that Shamima Begum is either a serious threat or guilty of cruelty. Should her defence team prove entrapment, then even if guilty of the most heinous of crimes – then she is not to blame.
If it turns out that there is no proof of entrapment, then either trafficking or grooming could be just as effective at rendering her faultless. All the same, it seems abundantly clear there is no such evidence of any serious wrongdoing.
With the exception of the Appeals Court and a handful of journalists, every level of society has failed Shamima Begum. The Police, the Intelligence Service, the Local Authority, the Media, the Foreign Office, The Home Office, the Prime Minister, and the Judiciary. They have all failed to uphold their responsibilities. I am aware of nobody else that has had such an extensive level of injustice heaped upon them. And suffered so much as a consequence.
And all of it done, in the name of Britain.
When Shamima is finally vindicated, will all those that prematurely delivered their convictions apologise? In fact, should it not be obvious that they apologise now? For so long they persecuted her before having access to the facts. And even after the revelation that CSIS may be complicit with entrapment, the public narrative remains unsympathetic. Despite the stupidity of commenting before all the facts are known, most commentators continue to show little consideration for the possibility of more hidden details that would disprove their damning convictions.
Although the word entrapment may finally be used, the word sorry is not likely to appear in the lexicon of Shamima Begum.
It is only a matter of time before she returns to the UK. And I believe when she does there will be no evidence of criminality. However, she will not be a free woman, because she is unlikely to be left alone to return to normality. Without an overwhelming public apology, she will suffer the final chapter of injustice. Members of the British public reacting to the misleading information they were indoctrinated with.
Oh, the irony.
September 2022
Reference
1 Turkish Airline flight TK1966 from Gatwick to Istanbul.
2 https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/world-news/957800/shamima-begum-canadian-spy-smuggled-into-syria
3 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/shamima-begum-was-smuggled-into-syria-by-western-spy-dqkkr8qlf
4 Good Morning Britain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eUKhCvMsj4
5 I do not have friends in the intelligence service. And no, my friend does not have an ‘inside source’ either. He just takes an interest in reading Turkish newspapers and the Middle East Eye. He read that Turkish Police had arrested the smuggler and discovered he was a covert intelligence officer for CSIS. This was back in February 2015. At the time my friend noted that the story not only failed to be widely reported, but oddly never got referred to again. For example, I never came across this information at the time – in fact my friend took another 5 years to get around to mentioning it to me!
6 I was expecting the story to break during the course of a court trial and not as a result of being one of many examples in a book about international intelligence sharing.
7 The smuggler, Mohammed al-Rashed, was arrested by Turkish authorities on 28 February 2015, within days of when he helped the girls cross the Turkish border into Syria.
8 Shamima Begum is currently being held in the Al-Roj camp in Syria. She was transferred there in March 2019.
10 Mahdi Mohamud was a Dutch national from a Somali family.
11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4AE8K3nUNU
12 Here are extracts from thatBBC interview, with the URL link below:
“So here is your opportunity then to apologise to some of the people who were murdered by the group that you joined. Some of the British men, women, some of the kids from Manchester that were killed at the Manchester Arena. You must have heard about that attack? What did you think?”
“I was shocked but…”
“But?”
“I didn’t know about the kids, actually. I do feel that it is wrong, like innocent people did get killed. It’s like one thing to kill a soldier that is fighting you, you know it is self-defence. But to kill people like women and children, like women and children in Baghouz that are being killed right now, unjustly with the bombings. It’s a two-way thing really, because women and children are being killed back in the Islamic State right now and it is kind of retaliation. Like, their [ISIS] justification was it was retaliation, so I thought, OK that is a fair justification.”
“I still haven’t heard you apologise to anybody”
“So yeah, I am sorry for all the families’ husbands, sons and brothers and I am sorry for all the men that have lost their women and children back in the UK and other countries. It was unfair on them they were not fighting anyone, they weren’t causing any harm and neither was I, and neither was the other women who are being killed right now back in Baghouz ”
“Well, I think you are wrong. You did cause harm, because you help this terrible regime, which was murdering people, which was mounting terror attacks. You joined them; you gave them support; you became a poster girl for them”
“Why do you think after you joined this group, which has rejected everything that Britain has offered, that you should be able to go back to Britain?”
13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccLZrF28yNA
14 The letter to the Begum family was dated 19th February 2019
15 Sky News interview – watch from 8:58
Although the tone used and the questions by John Sparks (Sky News) were both of a professional nature, was it appropriate to interview Shamima just after she had given birth?
17 Also, the nature of the UK terrorist legislation is that should the families contact their daughters, they too could be in violation of the terrorism act.
22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EolABzTprZY
23 BBC News, 26 February 2021 “Shamima Begum cannot return to UK, Supreme Court rules.”
25 Initially she has held by ISIS on suspicion that she was a British spy.
26 https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2859096/paula-williamson-dead-charles-bronson-coronation-street/
27 It is not clear how many heads were in the bin(s). Many articles have this incident written in the singular i.e. ‘head in the bin’. So, was there only one head?
28 In an interview with John Pilger this is precisely what the journalist, Rageh Omaar, admitted to, regarding his reporting on the 2003 war in Iraq.
29 Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is an intelligence and security organisation responsible for providing signals intelligence and information assurance to the government and armed forces of the United Kingdom.
“Our mission is simple: we help to keep the country safe, in the real world and online. We focus on communications: how to access, analyse and – occasionally – disrupt the communications of the UK’s adversaries; and on the nation’s cyber security. We work with the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), MI5, policing, Defence, and a myriad of partners overseas, and in the private sector and academia.”
30 The memo came from Frank Koza, chief of staff at the “regional targets” section of the National Security Agency (NSA) in the USA. Koza was in effect issuing a direct order to the employees of a UK security agency to gather “the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises”. This included a particular focus on the “swing nations” on the security council, Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, “as well as extra focus on Pakistan”.
31 UK Government papers that were supposedly leaked to the media.
Abdul’s World 
The Five Eyes by Richard Kerbaj is an interesting read although if you are into espionage you may already be aware of some of it excluding the Shamima Begum stuff. Nevertheless, it is the first dedicated history of an alliance that remained secret until 2010 and there are some fascinating revelations.
Also you may like to read a recent article about how 22 SAS Regiment was formed in Malaya in 1952 and how some of the more eccentric rogue officers were spawned by the Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare.
If so, see the news page dated 31 October 2022 in TheBurlingtonFiles website. While you are at it, Beyond Enkription in The Burlington Files about the real scoundrels in MI6 aka Pemberton’s People is well worth a read too.
LikeLike
As it so happens I am very interested in 22nd Airborne. I was not aware there was a book available. Thanks for the tip about the website.
LikeLike
Not so fast !!!! The book which is FACT BASED is not about the SAS but about three (Edward/Alan/Chad) of the key players in Pemberton’s People – see https://theburlingtonfiles.org/news_2021.09.26.php and https://theburlingtonfiles.org/news_2022.10.31.php – hope that clarifies it.
LikeLike