SHAMIMA BEGUM.

 

The current political turmoil in Syria has once again raised the topic of what will become of Shamima Begum.

Readers will recall that in 2015, then a 15 year old schoolgirl, she and two other east London schoolgirls absconded to Syria to join the Islamic State terror group.

 

Since then it has been reported that one of the girls, Kadiza Sultana has been killed and the fate of another girl, Amira Abase, is unknown. Meanwhile Shamima Begum remains in an armed camp somewhere in northern Syria.

 

Whilst at liberty in Syria she reportedly married the  23 year old fellow IS member, Dutch born Yago Riedijk and bore him three children, all of whom died in infancy.

In 2019, the then UK Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, made an order depriving Begum of British citizenship, something he was only able to do because Shamima was born in the UK to parents of Bangladeshi heritage, the reasoning being she therefore enjoyed Bangladeshi citizenship, it being illegal to deprive someone of citizenship if this would leave them stateless.

However, the Government of Bangladesh stated that Begum did not currently hold Bangladeshi citizenship, was not born there and had never lived there, and would not therefore be allowed to enter Bangladesh.

Whether or not Bangladesh would welcome Shamima into their country is irrelevant to the decision regarding nationality.

The Citizenship Act 1951 of Bangladesh gives two ways in which nationality may be obtained.

Citizenship via jus soli, that is by right of birth within the territory doesn't apply to Shamima as she was born in the UK, however she does enjoy  "Commonwealth Citizenship" by virtue of Bangladesh being a member of the  Commonwealth of Nations.

But the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act gives a second way in which citizenship may be gained, and that is via the concept of jus sanguinis ie citizenship by right of blood.

Put simply this means one may acquire citizenship regardless of whether they were born in Bangladesh or not, provided at least one parent was and as both Shamima's parents were born in Bangladesh the statement made by the Bangladeshi authorities seems to be perverse, and not in accordance with Bangladeshi law.

All the various appeals that have been made on Shamima's behalf  have failed to overturn the Home Secretary's decision, both that she presented a threat to national security and she would not, as a result of the parents birth place, be rendered stateless, the final word being that of the Court of Appeal in February 2024.

So legally it would seem the UK government is on solid ground but.............is there a moral aspect to this case?

Do we all, as citizens ourselves, owe some responsibility for the actions of our fellow citizens? We educated this unfortunate child, we were responsible as a society for teaching her right from wrong, are we morally justified in doing a Pontius Pilate, washing our hands of her, and leaving her to her fate?

 

There is one other consideration I would make, and that is forgiveness. We are taught "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and within a Christian society, and yes I know Shamima isn't a Christian, but forgiveness is an essential element of Christian belief.

We say in the prayer that Christ taught us "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those that trespass against us", is there no space in our hearts for forgiveness of this misguided young woman?