June 10, 2023 AT THE HOME OF LAETS Who Was Responsible For The Safety Of Shamima Begum? Http://laetshome.com

Who was responsible for the safety of Shamima Begum?

In February 2019, the Secretary of State for the Home Department Sajid Javid, took the decision to deprive Shamima Begum of British citizenship. The resolution was based on the fact that she travelled to Syria in February 2015 to join Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Immigration Act 2014

The Secretary of State has a practice of not depriving individuals of British citizenship when they are not within the UK’s jurisdiction for ECHR purposes if she is satisfied that doing so would expose those individuals to a real risk of treatment which would constitute a breach of article 2 or 3 if they were within the UK’s jurisdiction and those articles were engaged.

Special Immigration Appeals Commission UK (SIAC) described a two- stage test which it drew from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights: (i) a test of ‘direct consequence’ as the criterion for establishing state responsibility, liability being incurred if a state act which as a direct consequence exposes the individual to the relevant risk; and (ii) a test of ‘foreseeability’ as the criterion for establishing whether there are substantial grounds for believing the individual would be exposed to the relevant risk. The risk must be both foreseeable and a direct consequence of the deprivation.

It was concluded that, ‘there are no substantial grounds to believe that a real risk of mistreatment contrary to articles 2 (right to life) or 3 (prohibition of torture) will arise as a result of Begum being deprived of her British citizenship while in Syria”, and that “we do not consider that any potential article 2/3 risks that may arise in countries outside of Syria are foreseeable because of the deprivation decision.’

Wow! It is worth change LinkedIn to say that in January 2022, ten Britons said they had been detained and tortured after their citizenship had been confiscated.

What is citizenship?

Citizenship is the right to live in a country. In the UK, citizens have rights to things like welfare, education, healthcare and vote. Some people have the right to live in the UK permanently, which means that they have the same rights as a citizen but who are not citizens. You might become a British citizen if you or your parents are born in the UK, you live in the UK for a period, normally five years, marry a British citizen and have been in the UK for three years.

In the UK, someone can have its citizenship stripped by the home secretary, for the following reasons: for the public good, and would not make them stateless; the person obtained citizenship through fraud; its actions could harm UK interests, and they can claim citizenship elsewhere.

In many cases removing citizenship involved threats to national security such as terrorism, or serious organised crime. Miss Begum was stripped of her citizenship for the public good reason.

In common with other countries, the UK let people to be citizens of more than one country. In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum’s citizenship was lawful because she was ‘a citizen of Bangladesh by descent, but Bangladesh stated that was not the case, and that she would not be authorised to enter the country.

A Home Office spokesperson said: ‘The government’s top priority remains maintaining our national security and keeping the public safe.’ The Home Secretary considered that her return to the UK would present a risk to the national security of the UK.

In a 2021 interview, Javid reaffirmed his decision to revoke Begum’s citizenship, emphasizing that classified evidence would lead any sensible person to believe that she posed a risk to national security. This classified evidence needed to be disclosed to decide whether Shamima Begum was a peril. It wasn’t enough to declare she was.

In July 2019 it estimated that about a fifth had returned home or were trying to do so. There are also thought to be several hundred women and children from EU countries who have made their own way back.

Some countries such as Russia and the Central Asian states have taken back hundreds of their nationals. But Western European countries have generally taken back far fewer, and those they have allowed to return are often children.’

In 2019, Shamima Begum’s mother wrote to the Home Office to ask for a reconsideration for her daughter, as an ‘act of mercy’. Begum was 15 when she and two other schoolgirls went to join IS. The mother also said that the decision was unfair since thousands of Britons were authorised to come back from Syria. The letter says: ‘It is extremely unlikely that Shamima to be in a fit state to make any rational decisions.’

The St Albans’ bishop said: ‘She should come back, be properly interviewed and, if it is found that she has broken the law, she should face the law. If it is found that she has been radicalised, she should be given help and support.’

Critics said that the UK should have helped all of its citizens stranded in Syria to be repatriated even if they were to face criminal charges; just as other nations have done. Shame on the UK! I make fun of them! Bums! Complete idiot!

How did other countries deal with returning IS members?

‘After fighters travelled to Syria and Iraq, many countries changed or introduced anti-terrorism laws.

Most EU countries managed the return of IS fighters through criminal investigation and prosecution and use deradicalisation programmes to challenge their views.

Child returnees were generally seen by childcare professionals or placed in juvenile detention.’

Shamima Begum’ s Appeal

In November 2022, The Special Immigration Appeals Commission settled by judgement of 22 February 2023, after ministers took advice from national security about Ms Begum’s threat to the UK, that the decision taken by the then Home Secretary Sajid Javid in 2019 to deprive her of her citizenship was confirmed.

Yet, Begum’s lawyers presented conclusive arguments to prove that the decision was unlawful.

First, that the home secretary had ignored that Shamima Begum had been prepared, from the UK, and then trapped into child trafficking in February 2015, and that therefore, the decision was in breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the HRA”) with reference to Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the ECHR”), since there was a credible suspicion that she had been trafficked.

Second, that the deprivation decision rendered Ms Begum de facto stateless, as Bangladesh had clearly stated that Shamima Begum would not be authorised to enter the country.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court stressed that judges can only overturn a ‘public good’ deprivation decision by the Home Secretary in relatively limited circumstances: for example, if it was ‘unsupported by any evidence’ or ‘would make the person stateless’. It is clear to be the state of affairs.

Many citizens of the United Kingdom were safe from the deprivation proceedings for that motive.

Beyond that, it was against the law to say that Shamima Begum had a double citizenship. Under the Citizenship Act of 1951, a person born to at least one Bangladeshi parent shall be considered a Bangladeshi, but dual citizenship and nationality is not permitted in Bangladesh.

There are some exceptions to this rule, dual citizenship may be allowed under limited circumstances, however, an individual of Bangladeshi origin who is a citizen of the UK has to apply for a Dual National Certificate. As Bangladesh has pointed up, Shamima Begum didn’t!

In 2019, Bangladesh’s foreign minister even threatened Shamima Begum with the death penalty if she were to enter Bangladesh.

Consequently, the only citizenship Shamima Begum had, ‘has’ , was, ‘is’, British Citizenship.

In conclusion, it was, ‘is’, definitely illegal to deprive Shamima Begum of his citizenship since according to the law, ‘someone who was born British and has no other nationality cannot be deprived of its citizenship in any circumstances’.

Third, Ms Knights and Dan Squires KC said that, ‘ there were irrefutable breaches of duty by various state members in allowing Miss. Begum to pass through the border from Turkey into Syria, and a series of obvious questions of individual, local and national importance as to whether action could and should have been taken’ by organisations such as the Metropolitan Police, Miss Begum’s school, the Home Office and the security services ‘which may have prevented the girls from travelling on a “known traffic route” or led to their interception prior to their arrival in Syria’.

A classmate and friend of Shamima Begum, named Sharmeena Begum, also 15, travelled to ISIS-controlled territory in Syria on 5 December 2014.

On 10 December 2014, an assessment was conducted by Bethnal Green Academy, Shamima Begum School, titled ‘Risk Identification’.

Miss Begum was indicated as being ‘at risk of radicalisation’, and that there was an imminence of danger ‘that she could run away from home and school and leave the country to go to Syria’. It was paid attention to ‘Shamima was close friends with Sharmeena Begum. The school identified there was a threat ‘that she could also be encouraged to leave her family and the UK’.

The only action that appears to have been taken was on 5 February 2015. Police attended Bethnal Green Academy and gave Ms Begum and 7 of her friends a letter regarding the ‘disappearance’ of Sharmeena Begum, and asked the adolescents to hand over the letter to their parents.

The letter explicated that the police were looking to ‘understand Sharmeena and the reasons why she decided to leave this country’, and to ‘prevent other vulnerable teenagers from disappearing’.

The letters were never delivered!

I am afraid the police here acted foolishly in handing such an important letter to teenagers of 15 years old, identified and believed to be at risk of leaving the UK.

They should have directly reached the parents, or at least put the letter in the hands of the school; the headteacher, the teacher, the administrative secretary; any adult member of staff competent, in fact, justly capable of representing them, since the teenagers were minors.

It comes that the families were unaware that Sharmeena Begum had travelled to Syria and that there were worries about possible further vanishings.

This signifies that neither the school, nor the police or the mayor took the initiative to speak face to face, to send letters or emails to the parents and inhabitants immediately after the discovery of the evaporation of Sharmeena Begum on 5 December to inform of this situation!

Back to 6 February 2015 in an article written by the Guardian, Keith Vaz, chair of the home affairs committee of MPs, said: ‘It is extraordinary the police should have handed the letters to the girls themselves’.

The parents found fault, asserting that if they had known about it, they would have intervened to keep their children from departing from the UK. It is inadmissible!

Mr Akunjee, lawyer for the family of Shamima Begum accused Tower Hamlets of ‘gross negligence or concealment’ as no serious examination of the case was carried out. Mayor John Biggs declared: ‘I understand how desperate Shamima’s family is for his return, but their lawyers’ allegations are not a true reflection.’ But there was negligence!

He added: ‘Shamima Begum will have to answer for his actions, which is a matter for the government.’ The mayor refuses to admit his responsibility.

When Shamima Begum’s sister found the letter in her sister’s room, she called the police! At the time, the police devised a strategy to try to find the three girls, and they hoped to stop them in Turkey! But they did not succeed. As the parents raised, they then considered working hand in hand with the police. So why is Shamima Begum today banned from returning to the UK when everyone knows from the start that she is a victim. Is this a joke?

The point is that we know that Shamima Begum had been influenced, brainwashed, instructed, indoctrinated. England was looking for her! What is it now? They found her, that they simply repatriate her to England!

It’s totally unjust! Parents should not be punished for police and school negligence! They would have liked to protect their children!

This situation is very strange. We can ask ourselves if the United Kingdom is not complicit in ISIL for the trafficking of children as the Asian countries were in the trafficking of Rohingyas.

Regarding what was stated earlier, I completely agree there should have been more security measures in place to prevent people from the UK or anywhere from going to Syria. For example, travel restrictions, stringent identity checks, and requiring to appreciate the purpose of travel.

The girls left in mid-February. Is February a month for teenagers to go on vacation? In the middle of the school year?

And given the state of the situation, one can even ask ourselves if the procedures have been respected: parental authorisation is compulsory for a minor in order to be authorised to pass through border security and to go anywhere abroad alone without an adult. Was the form requested by the airport? Did the children bring a consent form to prove that their guardian approved their trip?

It emerged that Shamima used her sister’s passport aged 17 years old.

The Islamic State of Iraq and The Levant (Isil) is a terrorist organisation operating since 2014. The leadership circulated numerous calls for attack against US and Western possessions.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a terrorist organisation operating since 2014. But the terrorist threat started in 2011. For example, Tauqir Sharif, an aid worker from Walthamstow, moved to Syria in 2012 with his wife.

As the UK explains in ‘The Threat of Terrorism’, the UK has confronted numeral of terrorist menaces, occasioned by the rise of Daesh2 and the formation of its ‘caliphate’ linked up with the ongoing intimidations of al-Qaeda. Using noxious and discordant messages and intensifying felt problems, Daesh and al-Qaeda have manipulated the internet to further deformed alternative accounts, encouraging citizens of European communities to destroy the European way of life through brutal violence. They cruelly constrain weak people and young people to unite with their organisation, pushing people to execute unthinking acts of violence.

The UK put a strategy in place called CONTEST with four ‘P’ work streams:

  • Prevent: to prevent people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.
  • Pursue: to stop terrorist attacks.
  • Protect: to strengthen our protection against a terrorist attack.
  • Prepare: to mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack.

Unfortunately, this strategy came too late for Shamima! This situation existed long before Shamima Begum was induced.

Shamima was just a child. It is certainly her only defence. From my point of view, Shamima Begum should have brought into play the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

What is the UN Convention?

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) states l children’s rights and is the most widely-ratified international human rights treaty in history. The UNCRC was ratified by the UK in 1991..

The Convention has 54 articles that cover all aspects of a child’s life and establish the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that all children everywhere are absolute to, and outlines how adults and governments must function jointly to assure all children can have the benefit of all their rights.

Review what will continue

Article 3

  1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. 2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, …

Article 6

  1. States Parties recognise that every child has the inherent right to life. 2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child. I think that they downright infringed this article .

Article 9

  1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities … determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.

Article 11

  1. States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad. Shamima Begum’s flight from the UK was illegal because she was unduly influenced to do so. We could compare her decampment to a kidnapping!

Article 19

  1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child. While in contact with ISIL, Shamima Begum suffered mental abuse. Then she was sexually exploited.

Article 37

States Parties shall ensure that: (a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. By choosing that some can return to the UK and opting that Shamima will not be tolerated to do so, the UK inflicts cruel and inhuman treatment, and degrading and arbitrary punishment on Shamima.

Article 39

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflict. The UK had, ‘has’, the duty to give Shamima consent to return home, and to help her heal psychologically and physically from the deception, dirty work, and mistreatments she endured, ‘she is undergoing’.


In addition to the Convention of rights of the child, England has other legislation that protects the rights of children nationally and abroad. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 set up the age at which people can legally consent to sexual activity (also known as the age of consent) is 16. Shamima Begum was cheated into marriage three weeks after arriving in Syria. She was under the legal age to consent to sex. This implies that Shamima’s relationships were nothing but rape. She was also under the legal age to enter into marriage.

The UK should have protected Miss Begum on this.

Furthermore, this legislation instructs that, ‘it is important to have open, honest, and age-appropriate conversations with children about the law, consent, and healthy relationships’.

Between you and I, Shamima Begum was a 15 year old child. Don’t you think she wouldn’t have needed a relationship talk before, and more than ever now, after being sexually instrumentalised. Shamima Begum is still a child, and she is leaving out there by herself.

Another example, the UK also ratified the United Convention Against Torture (CAT) in 1988 which prohibits torture and all forms of cruel or inhuman treatment, in all contexts as well as prohibiting torture and ill-treatment both at home and abroad. Child abuse is all prohibited by CAT.

In 2019, Children Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) and 80 other civil society organisations submitted evidence to the UN Committee against Torture, highlighting the UK government’s wide-ranging failures to prevent torture and ill-treatment and meet its obligations under of the CAT.

What does this mean for the UK?

Shamima Begum had lived her whole life in the UK until she was procured in Syria as an impressionable 15-year-old.

This is where she belongs, Steve Valdez-Symonds Programme Director at Amnesty International UK, told Sky News, adding:’ the UK is responsible for her’.

Conservative MP David Davis told of the situation as a ‘shameful abdication of responsibility and must be remedied’.

My own feeling on the subject is that we must ask ourselves how Shamima Begum, 15, accompanied by two other little girls, got on a plane at Gatwick airport, without being stopped? Because that is what we could call ‘National Security’.

England also makes laws. Unless England decides to respect the laws, The family of Shamima Begum has several recourses to order that their daughter be deported to the UK!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *