Shamima Begum: Flawed Logic and Unanswered Questions

 

Well, at least the Daily Mail is happy at the refusal of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to restore Shamima Begum's British citizenship. In a gloat-filled article, Sue Reid concludes:

 "It is dispiriting – if entirely predictable – that so many on the Left have swallowed Begum’s pathetic attempts to paint herself as a peace-loving young woman with every right to live among us, rather than as the Isis fanatic she clearly was. But at least some semblance of sanity still exists within our judicial system".

I know that friends of mine on the Left will demur at my quoting the Mail, but it is important inasmuch as it highlights what a lot of people think of this case and how the government want us to think about it. It is a pervasive view, but it needs to be faced up to, if we are to challenge it effectively. I realise that I lay myself open to the right-wing accusation made about the BBC - that it has acted as a "useful idiot" for Shamima Begum. That is a scurrilous charge to make against the BBC, and I will show later that I am no such dupe for what is alleged to be Shamima's "sob story". But let's look at why she lost her citizenship in the first place.

Sajid Javid, as we know, was Home Secretary in 2019, and it was he who deprived Ms Begum of her citizenship. As The Independent says: 

"The Sunday Times later published a first-person article by Mr Javid repeating that deprivation powers could be used. He asked for an updated MI5 security assessment on Begum on 15 February, and received it at 5pm 18 February. At 7am on 19 February, his private office sent an email saying Mr Javid “agreed with the recommendation to deprive Ms Begum of her British citizenship”, and her family was informed by letter the same day".

Some people might consider this a mite hasty, but there it is. When grilled by Richard Madeley on ITV about his decision, Javid said that if Madeley knew the reason for his decision, he'd understand why he made Shamima Begum stateless and Madeley, in his place, would have made the same decision.

This is the "flawed logic" issue of the title. As this reason has never been revealed by anyone, it is impossible to comment upon it properly, but there is, I believe, a glaring anomaly that can be pointed out. If this reason concerns a criminal action, then surely Ms Begum should be brought here and placed on trial. If not, she is a criminal going unpunished. If it was not a criminal action, then what is the problem with reinstating her as a British citizen? I don't expect answers, but the question remains valid.

The refusal to readmit Ms Begum  on security grounds is also based on flawed logic. Along with some security experts (I'm not one), I believe that Shamima is more of a threat to British security if she is not returned to Britain. If she is left to rot in a Syrian detention camp, she may well become radicalised again and escape to rejoin Isis. Should anyone doubt this, it has already happened with Sharmeena Begum (no relation to Shamima), a Glasgow University student who had already joined Isis and had encouraged Shamima and her two friends online to join Isis in 2015. This other Ms Begum has fled a detention camp, returned to the remnants of Isis and thus become a serious potential terrorist threat. 

And there are more such potential threats. In 2019, the Evening Standard reported: 

"More than 4,500 of the 7,000 foreign children in the radicalising squalor of Al Hol, the camp in north-east Syria from which the UK repatriated a small number of British orphans last week, are under 12 years old. Of these about 60 have a fair claim to British citizenship".

In other words, 60 more potential terrorists. But there is another angle to this matter...

I've written on this topic before, and about the man in the picture above. Thomas Haller Cooper (1919 - 1987) was a traitor who was forgiven, and I think it useful to compare his case with that of Shamima Begum. Cooper was the progeny of an English father and a German mother. Before WW2, he went to live voluntarily in Nazi Germany. After war broke out, he joined the SS and was wounded in action. In 1943, he became an NCO in the newly-formed British Free Corps, a ragtag unit recruited from British prisoners of war. They are regarded as a bunch of fascists and misfits, but Cooper stands out because of a claim he made to his fellow traitors. He claimed that, while serving with the SS, he had murdered 280 civilians - 200 Poles and 80 Jews - in one day in Warsaw.

After the war, Cooper was tried and sentenced to death. His sentence was commuted for reasons which bear significantly on the Shamima Begum case. His sentence was commuted to life imprisonment because, says Wikipedia: " [he] had been [a follower] in treason rather than [a leader]". Sentenced to Life imprisonment, he was released in 1953. Compare this leniency towards a murdering fascist traitor to the treatment of Shamima Begum and it raises the question: why is Shamima Begum being so harshly treated when her crimes are nowhere near as grave as were those of Thomas Cooper? Also - if Cooper was a follower in treason but not a leader, then what, pray, is Shamima Begum?

To conclude, should Sue Reid, or someone of her ilk, read this article and accuse me of being an apologist for Shamima Begum, I say that I think that if Ms Begum is guilty of crimes here or abroad, she should serve time in prison. Her present treatment is both unjust and counter-productive.

And finally, let us show some sympathy for the Kurds, who were our infantry in the fight against Isis. They have now been lumbered with the burden of thousands of ex-Isis international refugees who are not wanted by their home countries. That is yet another injustice in this whole sorry business. Surely the Kurds deserve better?

One Year On: Putin Still Leads The Gang

 

A year ago yesterday, I wrote about Putin's invasion of Ukraine. So much has happened since, so much blood has been spilt and so much discussion has taken place, that I thought I'd revisit my post from a year ago, to see if my original view has been changed by events.

I found one statement that I think has been proven to be accurate, and I stand by it now:

"I think he (Putin) operates like the street gang member he was. As Wordsworth said: "The child is father of the man", and Putin will only act according to the instincts he developed on the streets as a kid."

I believe that, like any teenage gangster, Putin thought that, as he had got away with military aggression in Chechnya, Georgia and the Crimea, he could do the same when he invaded Ukraine. Well, he got that wrong. The Ukrainians, as we know, have resisted magnificently. A terrible price has been paid by Ukraine in terms of destruction, displacement and bloodshed, but, contrary to Putin's expectations, his illegal incursion was repulsed, and the initial Russian territorial gains have been considerably reduced by Ukrainian counter-attacks. The Ukrainian will to resist, despite much suffering, remains undiminished, albeit with NATO support.

For someone who grew up during the Cold War, the Russian military performance has been a revelation. For decades, we were led to believe that the Russian/Soviet/Red Army was a formidable, unstoppable force. I remember one Tory windbag in the 70s, a devout Daily Telegraph reader, declaring that "They (the Red Army) could be at the Channel in three days".

Well, events in Afghanistan, Chechnya (in the first Chechen War, at least) and now in Ukraine have proven that fear to be groundless, even though that fear did assist our military in acquiring more funds. The Russian Army has had a bloody nose in all those places, and it is still bleeding in Ukraine. Some estimates put Russian casualties at 200, 000. Like all armies that are doing badly, they have lashed out at innocent civilians, and there is ample evidence of Russian war crimes. When the Red Army occupied Germany in WW2,  they acquired a fearsome reputation for sex crimes against German women. Some Russian soldiers have followed this example by carrying out multiple rapes in Ukraine.

What interests me here is how Putin has reacted to these reverses and to international opprobrium. Like the leader of the gang he sees himself as being, hostile criticism and the suffering of innocent people are irrelevant for him. In fact, he never mentions it. Failures on the battlefield he sees as not being his fault. Unsuccessful or cautious commanders are replaced, as happened under Stalin in WW2. It's not clear if any have been shot yet - but give it time. Dissent in Russia is suppressed, so it's no wonder that up to 700, 000 young Russians have voted with their feet and fled abroad. This will mean nothing to Putin. All that matters to him is his ego and personal aggrandisement, channelled into Russian nationalism. Human life, and humane considerations, mean nothing to Vladimir Putin.

NATO support for Ukraine is welcome and effective, but undoubtedly late. Action was urged before, during the invasions of Georgia and Crimea, but nothing happened. The main reasons were because of business links with Russia and - very important - Russian "support" for the "War on Terror". It's often forgotten that Putin allowed the US military to supply the initial invasion of Afghanistan, post-9/11, from Russian territory. I can see no way out of this situation, but Putin must be resisted effectively. However, even if defeated, his abiding feeling of resentment will lead him to take other kinds of action. We already have indications of this.

Last year, I knew of the Salisbury poison attack and the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. After the invasion of Ukraine, though, I decided to learn more about Putin, his rise to power, and his interference in the affairs of other countries, such as the US 2016 presidential election and Brexit. I happened upon one very interesting book, which showed me that Putin has been behind many more murders of opponents, not simply in Russia, which I knew about, but here in the UK and, to a lesser extent, in the USA. The book, "From Russia With Blood", by Heidi Blake, is a good starting point, listing a number of murders and suspicious deaths over 20 years of people who have incurred the displeasure of Vladimir Putin. This includes the well-known killing and attempted killings of Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei Skripal to the lesser-known killings of Scot Young and Boris Berezovsky (both officially dismissed as "suicides"). Also covered is the death of Alex Chapman, who was married for four years to the Russian spy Anna Chapman. 

The book is not without flaws, as has been pointed out by Leonid Ragozin, but Blake's research into these deaths and near-deaths is admirable. I believe that we should make a realistic assessment of  Putin and his street gang attitudes. We should face up to the fact that he will be a threat to the west, whatever the outcome in Ukraine. We should look upon these assassinations as a portent of how Putin will react. Russia, as Afghanistan was said to be, could become a haven for terrorists. Let's face up to the fact that British citizens and others living here have been killed by Russian terrorists already; more could follow.

Dawn Sturgess, a British victim of Russian state terrorism. Died after finding a discarded bottle of Novichok used in the Salisbury Poisonings, 2018. R.I.P.