Like It or Not, Shamima Begum Must Return to the UK
Less than a year ago the latest version of CONTEST — the UK Government’s counter-terrorism strategy — was published. The strategy was presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Sajid Javid. On page 5, Javid wrote the strategy’s Foreword. In it he stated, “…we will make sure that terrorists cannot and will not change our way of life”.
On page 36 of the strategy — in the section titled ‘Pursue’ — is a text box. Titled, ‘Syria returners illustrative example’ (see image), it sets out how the state and its agencies would respond in the event of a young woman that had previously left the country to join Islamic State wanted to return to the UK some years later. Coincidentally, the woman in the illustrative example had given birth while in Syria. As the strategy states, in this scenario:
“…the Home Secretary and a judge approve the use of a Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO) to manage her return to the UK. The TEO allows us to…impose obligations upon the individual once they return to help protect members of the public from a risk of terrorism…On arrival in the UK the police launch an investigation into the woman’s activities in Syria to determine whether any crimes have been committed. If there is evidence that a crime has been committed then the mother will be charged and the Crown Prosecution Service will conduct criminal proceedings. If there is no evidence of criminality, the mother is assisted in reintegrating into society, for example, by requiring her to attend a series of sessions with a specially trained de-radicalisation mentor. In the meantime the mother is also obliged — as part of her TEO — to report regularly to a police station and to notify the Home Office of any change of address. The local authority is involved to ensure that the child is not at immediate risk and appropriate measures are put in place to help safeguard the child’s welfare.”
Sound familiar? Not really. At least not in the context of Shamima Begum and the news that Javid — the same person holding the same ministerial post that had presented the same strategy to Parliament less than a year ago — intends to revoke her citizenship. What’s made Javid undertake such a volte face and make the correct and appropriate response set previously appear so unworkable eight months on?
Begum left her home in Tower Hamlets, east London back in 2014 to travel with two school friends to Syria and live under the Islamic State. Referred to at the time as ‘jihadi brides’, opinion was split between whether the three girls — Amira Abase, 15; Kadiza Sultana, 16; and Begum, also 15 — had chosen to leave of their own accord or whether they had been groomed online. Now 19 years old and held in the al-Hawl refugee camp in north-eastern Syria, a then pregnant Begum made headlines again by giving an interview to The Times. Having now given birth to a baby boy, Begum has given a number of other interviews to various other media outlets. Having already had two children die, Begum repeatedly stated that she wanted to come back to the UK for the sake of her new-born son. She asked the British public to show ‘sympathy’ towards her and “let me come back”. She added, “…I just want to come home…That’s all I want right now. I’ll do anything required just to be able to come home and live quietly with my child”.
Public opinion in the UK could not have been further from what Begum asked, with opinion polls suggesting three quarters of the population opposed her return. Much of the opposition seemed to stem from the fact while Begum distanced herself from the “…silly little 15-year-old schoolgirl who ran away from Bethnal Green four years ago” she said she did not regret her decision to leave and join the Islamic State. She also said that the sight of a severed head of an “enemy of Islam” in a bin did not “faze” her and that while it was unfortunate innocent people died in 2017’s attack at Manchester Arena, it was “justified” given airstrikes in Syria had routinely killed innocent people. Given the headlines attributed to these statements, the public response is the one that should have been expected.
The same is not true of the political response. In fact the initial response by Javid to Begum’s request to return to the UK was quite different; one that was consistent with the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy and the precedents already established as regards returnees. Prior to announcing his intention to revoke Begum’s citizenship, Javid stated that as Begum had given her support and allegiance to a proscribed terrorist organisation, she should be prepared to face the necessary consequences. To this extent, the family’s legal representative confirmed Begum had accepted this and was prepared to face some form of criminal prosecution. No wonder given the counter-terrorism strategy set out what would likely happen next.
This was the case with those British women who have already returned to Britain after having previously left to join the Islamic State. Just last week, it was reported that Tareena Shakil — the first British woman jailed for joining the Islamic State in Syria — had been freed from prison having been found guilty of encouraging acts of terrorism on social media and being a member of a proscribed organisation. Since then, the Independent has reported that another British woman — who cannot be named for legal reasons — was not prosecuted on her return to the UK but did have her child taken into care. That a number of legal options exist as regards prosecuting returnees — including those who are known to have fought for the Islamic State — it is unclear what it is that makes the Begum’s case so different.
The answer to this might be as simple as it being convenient and easy. This was best articulated by Farhad Ansari, a lawyer who represented two Britons previously stripped of their citizenship. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he suggested it was possible that insufficient evidence was available with which to bring a successful prosecution against Begum. As such, the Home Secretary might have been faced with the stark decision of revoking her citizenship as the only means of stopping her return or allowing her to come home and face the ire of an already antagonistic general public towards an already flailing government. As Ansari went on, while Begum could still appeal against the decision — and her family have confirmed they will — this will only be allowed via the special immigration appeals commission which is largely based on closed evidence and does not allow Begum or her lawyer’s access. Consequently, choosing to revoke Begum’s citizenship means that the Home Secretary does not have to prove her criminality in court.
As well as being convenient and easy, Javid’s decision is also undoubtedly hypocritical. This is because the Government’s own definition of extremism includes ‘active opposition to fundamental British values’ one of which is ‘the rule of law’. While I have written elsewhere about the problematic nature of fundamental British values, let us not forget that the strict adherence to principles such as the rule of law — including being innocent until proven guilty and having the right to a fair trial — are the very things that those such as the Islamic State hate about us. On this point, it is good to see the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party all voicing similar. Because of this, there is no doubt that Begum should be brought back to the UK and given a fair trial: that is what we do and we should not falter when faced with challenging situations. In fact Javid agrees — or at least he did last June — when he stated in his foreword “…we will make sure that terrorists cannot and will not change our way of life”.
While the ideologies and activities of the Islamic State are abhorrent, irrespective of who likes it or not the right — and moral — thing to do is bring Begum back to the UK and use the full force of the law against her. If the evidence to prosecute her does not exist, then so be it: she will still be monitored as regards the threat she poses to the general public. That is what we have done with the other women that have returned to the UK from the Islamic State and that is what we have done with the men that have returned from fighting also. And that is because it is exactly what the Government stated it would do in such circumstances in its counter-terrorism strategy. It is there in black and white for all to see. Stating this is not about pandering or being ‘soft’ — in fact, quite the opposite — but about adhering to established British values and the belief that the rule of law is not only the best option but so too the right one.
